Roberts v. Richland Irrigation Dist., 289 U.S. 71 (1933)
Linked as:
Text
U.S. Supreme Court ROBERTS v. RICHLAND IRR. DIST., 289 U.S. 71 (1933)
[Page 289 U.S. 71, 75]
the 14th Amendment unless palpably arbitrary and a plain abuse. Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 176, 17 S.Ct. 56; Houck v. Little River Drainage Dist., 239 U.S. 254, 262, 36 S.Ct. 58; Miller & Lux, Inc., v. Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Dist., , 41 S.Ct. 404; Valley Farms Co. v. Westchester County, 261 U.S. 155, 43 S.Ct. 261.
If to meet a general obligation an irrigation district, proceeding under authority granted by the state, should lay a tax distributed according to value, there hardly could be reasonable doubt of its validity under the 14th Amendment. Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, supra; French v. Barber Asphalt Pav. Co., 181 U.S. 324, 21 S.Ct. 625; Webster v. Fargo, 181 U.S. 394, 21 S.Ct. 623. And in the present case we are unable to say that because the assessment was distributed in proportion to estimated benefits that an exaction exceeding such benefits would amount to spoliation and represent a plain abuse of power. A general tax distributed in proportion to benefits received is not indicative of arbitrary action.
The principle applied in Norwood v. Baker, 172 U.S. 269, 19 S.Ct. 187, and similar cases, has no application here. Appellant's land will be assessed to meet a general obligation of the corporation and the mere fact that the apportioned burden will exceed estimated benefits gives no color to the claim of confiscation. As pointed out in the cases cited, lands may be taxed to pay for local improvements although they receive no actual benefits. Never, as the Supreme Court of the state has said, was appellant entitled to the segregation of his share of the corporate obligation. The statute did not contemplate that assessments against any tract should be limited to payment of its increased value. A general obligation was created and every tract subjected thereto.
AFFIRMED.
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Sponsored links
