Fallbrook Irrigation Dist v. Bradley

[Syllabus from pages 112-114 intentionally omitted]

This is an appeal from the United States circuit court for the Southern district of California. The case is reported in 68 Fed. 948. The action was commenced in that court by defendants in error (the plaintiffs below) for the purpose of procuring an injunction restraining defendant Tomlins. the collector of the irrigation district, from giving a deed to it of the premises belonging to plaintiff Mrs. Bradley, based on a sale of her land made by the collector for the nonpayment of a certain assessment upon such lands under the act incorporating the irrigation district, and to set aside such assessment, and for other relief.

The following among other facts were set up in the plaintiffs' second amended bill in equity: The plaintiffs are aliens and subjects of Great Britain, residing in San Diego county, Cal. The irrigation district is a corporation organized pursuant to the laws of California, and doing business at Fallbrook, San Diego county. Matthew Tomlins was the collector of the corporation at the time of the commencement of the suit, and it has been doing business as, and claims to be, a corporation, under 'An act providing for the organization and government of irrigation districts, and to provide for the acquisition of water and other property, and for the distribution of water thereby for irrigation purposes,' approved March 7, 1887, as such acts have been amended by the acts of 1889 and 1891.

[Statement of case from Page 115 intentionally omitted]

The material sections of the act, as amended by the other acts just stated, are set forth in the margin herein.

The legislature also passed two acts, approved February 16, 1889, called, respectively, the 'Inclusion' and the 'Exclusion' Act, by which means were provided, in the first-named act, for including lands within an irrigation district which had not been included in the petition when first presented to the board of supervisors; and, in the second-named act, for excluding from a district already formed some portion of the land which then formed part of such district. An examination of those acts does not become material in this case.

The plaintiff Mrs. Bradley is the owner of certain real estate described in complainants' bill, which is included within the lines of the irrigation district. The bill sets forth the various steps taken under the irrigation act for the purpose of forming the irrigation district, and it alleges the taking of all steps necessary therefor, including the election of officers as provided in the act; that the board of directors submitted to the electors the question whether a special assessment for $6,000 should be made for the purpose of defraying the expenses of organization, and that the electors approved of such assessment, and the proper proceedings were thereafter taken by which to assess the property owners; and that plaintiff Mrs. Bradley's assessment amounted to $51.31, which she refused to pay because the act was, as alleged, unconstitutional and void.

The bill further states that the collector then proceeded to enforce the collection by a sale of the land, and did sell it to the irrigation district, but that no deed has been given to the district by the collector; and an injunction is asked to restrain the execution and delivery of any deed by such collector, because of the alleged invalidity of the act under which the proceedings were taken.

The bill also alleged a proposed issue of bonds to the amount of $400,000, subject to the decision of the electors at an election proposed to be held under the provisions of the act.

Various reasons are set out in the bill, upon which are based the allegation of the invalidity of the act, among which it is stated that the law violates the federal constitution, in that it amounts to the taking of the plaintiff's property without due process of law. It is also stated that the act is in violation of the state constitution in many different particulars, which are therein set forth.

The bill also asks that the assessment may be set aside, and all the proceedings declared void, on the ground of the invalidity of the act itself.

The defendants demurred to the first bill of the complainants, and the demurrer was overruled. The complainants were granted leave to serve a second amended bill, to which the defendants put in an answer, denying many of the material allegations of the bill, and claiming the entire validity of the act.

The case came on for hearing before the circuit judge, by consent, upon the second amended bill of complainants, and defendants' answer thereto, and the court gave judgment against the defendants, because of the unconstitutionality of the irrigation act; it being, as held, in violation of the federal constitution, as the effect of such legislation by the state was to deprive complainants of their property without due process of law. The decision of the circuit judge was given for the reasons stated by him in his opinion rendered upon the argument of the demurrer to the bill of complainants, and some of the facts stated in the bill and admitted by the demurrer were denied in the answer subsequently served by the defendants. The sole ground of the decision was, however, the unconstitutionality of the act, as above stated. From the judgment entered upon the decision of the circuit judge the irrigation district appealed directly to this court, by virtue of the provisions of section 5 of chapter 517 of the Laws of 1891 (26 Stat. 826), which gave an appeal from the circuit court direct to the supreme court 'in any case that involves the construction or application of the constitution of the United States,' and also 'in any case in which the constitution or law of a state is claimed to be in contravention to the constitution of the United States.'

A. L. Rhodes, Benjamin Harrison, for appellants.

Geo. H. Maxwell, for appellees.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 125-130 intentionally omitted]

Joseph H. Choate

[Argument of Counsel from Pages 131-151 intentionally omitted]

John F. Dillon

Mr. Justice PECKHAM, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.