The daily star-mirror., 1915-11-01
EVERY POINT
WAS TAKEN UP
IDAHO SUPREME COURT ANALYZ-
ED IDAHO IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT LAW
Upheld Every Provision Respecting
the Creation of Jackson Street
Paving Case

Copies of the decision of the Idaho
supreme court made Friday night in
the jackson street paving" case
have been received in Moscow and
shows that the court passed on all
points involving the validity of the
law passed by the Thirteenth session
of the legislature respecting the for
nation of improvement districts. The
suit was on an application for writ
of prohibition against the city of Mos
COW to enjoin the council against pro-
ceeding with the creation of paving
Improvement district No. 2, the plain
tiff being A. v. Mcqueen. Arguments
inSthe case were heard by the court
\ at Lewiston. John Nisbet represent
ed Mcqueen and submitted argu-
ments involving oil the intricate
points. C. j. Orland represented the
city of Moscow and W. E. Lee made
an extended argument as a friend of
the court and in support of the city
of Moscow and the friends of tile
paving propaganda.
Council Denies Protest
On May 8, 1915, a petition was filed
with the clerk of the city of Moscow,
asking for the organization of local
improvement district as provided FOR
in law passed by the Thirteenth ses-
sion of the Idaho legislature. A com
mittee from the council reported fa-
vorably on the petition and a time was
set for filing protests. A protest was
Ned within the time allowed but the
council denied the protest and went
ahead with the work until stopped by
the writ secured from the supreme
court
In discussing the contention of the
plaintiff, the court said that, follow
ing the law, the petition must be
signed by 70 per cent of the residents
of the proposed district and that legal
signers must be owners of property
therein subject to assessment More
fully going into the matter the court
answered 10 questions propounded by |
the counsel for plaintiff, fixing those
who are eligible to sign the petition |
The court said:
Community Property Owners
Where husband and wife own
community property in the proposed
district, the signature of the husband
is sufficient. The same is true where
the real estate is owned by one of the
tablished thereon. If the community
property stands in the name of the
wife, her signature is sufficient. In
case husband and wife. owners OF
community property, both sign the
petition, the two should be counted
as one.
"A corporation incorporated under
the laws OF this state, is entitled tC
sign petition, providing its own as
sessable property is in the proposed
district, but foreign corporation, re-
gardless of the fact that it holds prop
erty within the district, may not be
counted.
Contract Holder Eligible
"A person holding real estate in con-
tract within the proposed district, the +
deed being in escrow, may sign the +
petition providing his grantor does not
sign it. If two persons are joint own =
ers Of property in the district but each !
owns other property in the district !
each is entitled TO sign I
the petition but thsir names can be q
counted but once. 1
"The name of petitioner, at the
time of signing nonresident of the q
state, cannot lie counted to the credit h
Of the district nor can name be \
which has been placed on the 4
petition 60 days after it has been filed O
and acted on by the council or with .
drawn from the petition after the 9
council has published its ordinance d
# intention b
The court found that the council, u
sfter checking Up the petition, dis o
covered sufficient names thereon to
constitute 70 per cent Of the residents
If the district, and held that the 3
.ouncil had the right to proceed with
he creation of the district over the Y
protest Of the property holders. Il
All Owners Have Voice n
1t is explained that. although nom Il
esident property holders in the dis u
rict may not sign the petition for the Y