The Emmett index. [volume] (Emmett, Idaho) 1893-1925, 1916-08-17
TO FIGHT IRRIGATION
ASSESSMENT
Worthmans File Suit to Re-
strain Transfer of Tax Deed
Contend Levy Was Void

A suit filed this week in the
district court by Harry S.Worth-
man and May S. Workman, his
wife. to restrain the Emmett lr-
riqation District from delivering
IN the Bank Of Emmett, purchas-
or of a tax sale certificate, a tax
deed to 80 acres Of land belong
ing to H. S. Workman and 40
acres the property of Mrs. May
Scott Workman, on the bench,
is a move of the greatest import
ance to the irrigation district,
as it involves the legality of the
assessment Of S. per acre levied
August 20, 1912, for the purpose
of raising $113,600, "denomin-
ated as a maintenance assess
ment."
This assessment was not paid
bv the Worthmans and as re-
suit their lands were sold for de-
linuuent taxes. The district bid
in the land. Later the tax certl-
fcate was sold to the Bank OF
Emmett for S102260. The per-
iod for redemption of the pro-
perty will expire September 2,
1916, and unless redeemed prior
to that time tax deed will be
issued to the Bank of Emmett,
The action is brought to prevent
the issuance of tax deed on the
ground that the levy was illegal and
should be declared void for the fol-
lowing reasons enumerated in the
cause of acticn), and because of which
protest was made by plaintiffs
against the assessment:
First-Said assessment could not
be made without first cancelling the
unsold bonds.
Second-No levy of assessment
could be made against plaintiffs
lands in excess of 10 per cent of the
amount of unsold bonds of said dis
trict.
Third-That the board of directors
of the Emmett Irrigation District
did not at any regular meeting, or
at all, levy any assessment upon
lands of plaintiffs and the lands of
the district upon the basis and in pro-
portion to the benefits such lands
would receive.
Fourth-The estimate upon which
levy was made was not itemized.
In the statement of facts set forth,
it is stated that of the bond issue OF
S1,1O0,O00, SS77,625 were sold, leav-
ing unsold s222,375 at time of sale of
plaintiffs lands; that s56,3S5 was
raised by the levy of $3.50 per acre
without cancelling unsold bonds OF
that amount; that on August ~,
1913, the board levied an assessment
of $3.50 per acre to raise s56,3So Tor
maintenance charges, operation, re-
pairs and improvements, and called
maintenance assessment; that in real
ity the assessment was one in lieu OF
bonds and levied for construction pur-
poses.
The contention is made that the
board of directors was without power
or authority of law to levy said as
sessment without first cancellmg
bonds of the district to the amount OF
said assessment, and said board had
no power or authority to levy any
assessment against any of the lands
of the plaintiffs in excess OF lO per
cent of the amount of the unsoio
bonds remaining in its hands, in any
year, unless authorized by major
pity vote of the qualified electors CT
sthe district.
Plaintiffs allege that they filed pro- {
TESTS against the assessment with
kthe board on September 15, 1918, for ]
Ethe reason that said assessment was
made to pay for work and material,
payment for which was contemplated |
'ty the bond issue, and because bonds
were not cancelled to amount of as
8essment The protests were over
ruled and denied by the board, and
fn September ?, 1918, Treasurer Shaw
pold, over the protests of plaintiffs,
kll of their lands by reason of non
payment of assessment.
q Owing to the questions involved in {
khis action and the Importance of an
<arly decision in this case, it is hoped
hat the matter may be tried at the
ext tarm of the district court.