The Kennewick courier-reporter. [volume] (Kennewick, Wash.) 1914-1938, 1928-09-13
RONDS HELD
NOT TO BE A
blanket LIEN
n..;sion of Richland Case
Varies from Accepted Be-
Hef-May Be Big Aid To
All Irrigation Districts of
state.

4 decision has been handed down
= the Superior Court in the So
.usd Richland Bond Case which
Il interest to every owner of
md in every irrigation district
I the state. The principal point
( issue in the case is the familiar
4lsnket mortgage, by which it
- been generally supposed that
reh and every acre of land in
nch a district is liable for as
rssment until the last dollar Of
lie bond issue is paid.
The District contended that this
| ,yplies in these districts, no tract
4 land being liable beyond the
uaximum benefit which accrued
% the land from the building of
lie Improvement. The Court holds
nuarely with this view.
The following letter from M. M.
Noulton who handled the Dis
tit,s case, gives a clear analy-
il of the Courts decision.
Dear Mr.. Stevens:
| am in receipt of a written de-
dsion in the case brought recent
n by the bondholders against the
hrigation district. have had no
opportunity to go over the decis-
ia with the other attorneys.
The Courts decision, as / ana
he it, presents and determines
t1ree propositions:
~ The court appears to hold
hat the district cannot deny tina.
Hs benefit to the entire district
1 It least as much as the bond
nue and interest. The court bases
this holding on the proposition
hat it would be inequitable to bor-
nw the money, invest it in the
mprovements and then claim that
the benefit is less than the amount
d money borrowed and interest
thereon during the period Of pay
nent.
~ The court then holds that
he bond issue and the interest
must be apportioned against the
hnd in accordance with the bene-
fts derived by each tract of land,
which is to be determined by its
Increase in value resulting from
tie construction of the improve
nent.
30 Finally, the decision, refer
hg to individual land owners as
npresented by the intervening de-
fendants, reads as follows: :.
They are not relieved until
they shall have paid their pro-
portionate share of the entire
debt to be allotted in accordance
With the relative benefits to
their property. This does not
mean that each acre is liable
ior the entire undertaking. 1t
means that, in considering the
benefits to their property, along
NTH the relative benefits ac-
ruing to all other tracts, there
IS a certain maximum sum for
them all to pay. When they saall
have paid this, their lands will
g freed from the burden"
The directors of both Richland
nd Columbia Districts, on Mr..
aoulton's advice, took practically
a. view of the law a year ago,
No made appraisals of maxi
mum benefits on their lands.
'aese appraisals, being in total
psctically the amout of the bond
ues, will be little affected by
6 Courts ruling on the first
uOposition. These districts have
H0ceeded practically according
= the view of the Court as ex-
Ressed in paragraph (2).
Inc important point is that
q Of the decision quoted in par
sph (S). This will lift the
ssloen that has rested on every
naa-owner who held the general
xalerstanding-that an unlimited
s0irty - hung over his lands un-
- These bonds were all paid.