The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1912-04-05
COUNTY OF CANYON
LOSES SUIT IN The
DISTRICT COURT
Judge Davis Renders Most I'm
portant Decision on
Highway Case.
DISTRICTS ARE EXEMPT
Canyon County Loses Suit brought by
Nampa Highway District-case will
60 to Supreme Court for Final Ad-
judication-Five per cent is Maxi
mum Rate of Interest.


mum Rate of Interest.
Canyon county will appeal from the
decision of the district court in the
case brought by 0. G. Reinhart, chair
man Of the board of directors of the
Nampa Highway district against the
board of county commissioners of
Canyon county. The district court in
this case held that the county could
not levy greater tax than per cent
for road purposes and at the same time
fixed the status of road bonds issued
by counties and highway districts
Messrs. J. A. Elston and r. B. Scat
terday represent the county and
Messrs J. M, Thompson and F. A.
Hagelin the highway district.
The decision, rendered by Judge
Carl A. Davis of the third district, is
that the Nampa highway district can
not be enforced to pay or help pay
for the Improvement of the roads else
where in the county. The court fur
Their holds that county has no right
to levy and collect taxes to pay off
bonds issued for the construction OF
bridges in a special road district after
such district has been formed. The
following is the important part of the
syllabus of the decision of Judge Da-
Wis:
"The highway district law of Idaho
provides in section 10 in substance
that when any part of highway is
of mutual advantage to other por-
tons of county and highway dis
trict therein, and expenses relative
thereto would be an unjust burden
upon either, that division of the cost
may be agreed upon or settled by
suit.
Tax Under Laws.
| "And while section 81 vests in the
county commissioners authority to
levy taxation under the general laws
and certain sections of the codes
within a highway district, it is also
provided therein how such taxes shall
be apportioned, and gives to the coun,
ty only 5 per sent of the proceeds
which amount may be distributed te
the road and bridge funds of the coun
ty and may be applied on bonds issuee
for such purposes by the county, bu
that does not authorize the county t
collect taxes on property in highway
district at the same rate as in othel
parts of the county for use of he roat
and bridge funds of the county; ant
although section IS provides in tn
proviso that county commissioner
may levy, collect and apply taxes nee
essary to discharge bonds issued prio
to the organization of a highway dis
trict, this implies that the county ha
no authority generally to levy and col
lect taxes for the payment of bond
issued for the construction of particu
lar bridges and affect highway dis
trict after its organization,
ut appears, therefore, that since tn
bonds which Canyon sNks to ISSUE
and involved in this action. are for
, purpose of such nature that tn
county and the highway distrit
should jointly bear the burden unde
. Just arrangement, either to be agree
upon between them or fixed by tt
| district court. And that the coun,
has no authority in any way to bin
the property of the highway distri
for the payment of bonds issued IL
the construction of bridges in que
ton, except for the per cent OF II
general levy above mentioned, a
! though said bonds are apparently leg
in other respects.
D Judgment will be for the plaintiffs
e Other counties have offered to 10
0 with Canyon county i'll making Il
y appeal to the supreme court. This
a very important matter as eve
y county in Idaho is affected to mo
e or less degree If the decision of t
t district court be sustained, the ISIS
c ance of bonds for road and brid
n purposes, will be seriously interior
with.