Court Opinion

ID: 7813127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:16:11.787151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:31.710601
License: Public Domain

Kirby, J., (after stating the facts). It appears that this levee district was organized under the general law, and there is no complaint of any irregularity, defect or mistake in the organization or of any injustice or discrimination in the assessment of benefits, relief being sought only because of an alleged changed condition in values of the property, plaintiff’s having declined to almost a nominal value while the other property of the district has been improved, cultivated and increased in value. The granting of the relief prayed would necessitate a reassessment of the benefits of the property of the district, the increase of assessment and tax upon the other lands of the district in proportion to any reduction made on that of appellant, since no decrease can be made that would impair the obligation of the district to pay its bonds nor its ability to do so. The assessment, being made in accordance with the law (§§ 6823-6831, Crawford & Moses’ Digest) became a lien on all the lands of the district in the nature of a mortgage, as provided by law, and necessarily upon each tract as shown by the lists filed in the'county clerk’s office, it being provided only that, at any time before judgment in any foreclosure proceeding brought to enforce the lien, an error made in the description of any of the lands embraced in the assessment or lists can be corrected. No authority is given for reassessment of benefits on ■changed or different values, or reduction or increase of the amount thereof, against any of the lands of the district, it not being contemplated, evidently, that there could be any such material change in condition as would require a change in the benefits assessed during the time for the payment of the improvement. In any event, no authority is given in the general laws, under which this district was organized, as is the case in acts providing for the organization of some other improvement districts, for reassessment of benefits upon the property contained therein, and none such can be implied, as incident to the authority given for carrying out the purposes of the law, authorizing such reassessment. It follows that the complaint did not state a canse of action, and no error was committed in sustaining the demurrer thereto. The judgment is affirmed.