
    Albert Haferman, Appellee, v. Joint Drainage District No. 1, Cerro Gordo, Franklin, and Hancock Counties et al., Appellants.
    DRAINS: Assessments — Unallowable Item of Expense. The boards of supervisors in charge of an inter-county drainage improvement are wholly without jurisdiction to include in a' deficiency assessment on all the lands within the district an item of expense which had been contracted in one county by the board of supervisors thereof in the employment of a fiscal agent to sell the bonds which had been issued in such particular county.
    
      Headnote 1: 19. C. J. p. 715.
    Headnote 1:' 58 L. E. A. 353; 9 E. C. L. 655.
    
      Appeal from Franklin District Court; — B. R. Bryson, Judge.
    November 22, 1927.
    Action to set aside, as illegal 'and void, assessment made by ' said joint boards for and on behalf of said drainage district, including an item for $17,157 and one for $568, paid by Cerro Gordo and Hancock Counties, respectively, for fiscal agents to sell drainage bonds. The district court granted the relief, and therefore this appeal was taken.
    
    Affirmed.
    
      W. H. Ramsey, R. L. Baley, and W. A. Westfall, for appellants.
    
      Mallory th Leming, for appellee.
   Kindig, J.

Chronologically, the stipulated facts are: Joint Drainage District No. 1 was organized December 19, 1917, to include 33,000 acres of land in Cerro Gordo, Franklin, and Hancock Counties. On March 31, 1921, the costs and expenses of said improvement were apportioned, and, as provided by statute, an assessment was levied therefor in the sum of $855,541.51.' Then the boards of supervisors of Cerro Gordo and Hancock Counties individually determined that the assessment was greater than should be levied in a single year upon the lands benefited in their separate counties, and authorized the issuance and sale of drainage bonds. To find purchasers for these instruments, each county last named employed the same fiscal agent, who was paid $17,157 by Cerro Gordo County and $568 by Hancock County. In the meantime, Franklin County issued improvement certificates, and sold them at par, plus accrued interest, without such representative. Afterward, upon the 21st day of December, 1921, the boards- of supervisors of said three counties, in joint session assembled, approved the commission due the fiscal agent employed by said two counties, and ordered the amount paid, finding that there was a deficit in the costs of construction over and above the original assessment, totaling $162,552.88,-in-eluding the expense of said bond salesman;- Thereafter; at‘the time fixed, these joint, boards levied a re-assessment -for.--the-amount of said deficiency. Appellee, a taxpayer and assessment bearer, in.Franklin County, • within said■ district,, objected,, appealed, and finally brought this action, to avoid including within said levy the said intermediary’s.fees. -Consolidated herewith, under stipulations of all parties concerned, are the following cases in the district court of Franklin County, to wit Numbers 7906 to 7921, inclusive,, except Numbers.7908, 7911, and 7918.

By written agreement, there were .eliminated from this, controversy, all questions except one, which is embodied in the following paragraph.taken therefrom, to -wit:

"It is further stipulated and agreed that the question to be submitted to the [district] court and adjudicated in these appeals is the question of whether or not under the law,. such leyy to pay the deficit, including said sum paid to the fiscal agent, was legally made against all the lands in said district, or whether the costs of such fiscal agent'of' $17,157 •■(plus $568) " should be paid by the lands, of said district within Cerro Gordo * * * [and-Hancock-Counties]:.” • - v

This question has never before been determined in this'state, and wé have'been furnished with no authorities-to-aid us in the solution- of ■ the problem. Due to .unquoted sentences-of said-understanding, the parties.have--withdrawn.from.the case any dispute over the power of the local county officials concerned, to incur, the indebtedness here involved. That .right is assumed,' but we do not decide or-determine-its-existence.: - A ■

. Confining the scope of this study to a finding as -to whether ■ or not. all land within the-.district must carry :the weight of-this-obligation, our course is -directed to the statutory- .provisions .contained in the 'Code of 1924,: immediately .quoted

‘ ‘76-14. After the amount to be- assessed -and levied against: the several tracts .of land shall have been.finally determined,-■ the several- boards; acting .separately,- and within, their, own • counties,-shall -levy and collect the taxes apportioned- and- levied., in their, respective counties. They. may.issue.warrants; improve-!' ment certificates,'or bonds -for the payment of the cost of such improvement within their respective counties; with' the. same-,-, right of- landowners to' pay without interest .or in -installments. all as provided where the.district is.wholly..within one-county.-”-

“7615. "Wheri drainage bonds are to'be issued urider the provisions of the preceding section they shall- be issued at such timé that they or the proceeds thereof shall be available for the use of :the'distinct'at a date riot later thari ninety days after the ■actual commencement of the work ori the improvement as provided iri -relation' to districts wholly withiri’ orie county, and subject td the'same exceptions iri cases of appeals set forth in Section 7507.”'' ' '

“7626. Except as otherwise stipulated, in-this chapter, the provisions and procedure set forth in Chapter '353 shall govern and-ripply to * * * the issuance arid delivery of warrants, bonds and assessment ■ certificates, "the payment of taxes arid assessments, ***.”■'' ! - ' :

“7508. Such' bónds 'may be applied' at par with accrued interest tó the payment of 'work ariit progresses upon the-improvements of the district, ok, the-board1 may sell, through the county -treasurer,' said bonds1 at not' less'thari par with accrued interest and devote the proceeds • to ‘such paymerit. Any premium derived from the sale-of ■ said bonds shrill-be credited-to the drainage fund'of the district.” ■' - ' . "

■ Such is the method supplied by the legislature for financing the project. First, there is riri apportionment Of the assessriLeht, constituting the basis’for future levies. -’Thus far, control is in the hands of the joint boards; but at this point, that jurisdiction ceases,:'and the'part of the special-'tax to' be collected from the real estate in each county is referred to said subdivision of the state, and it henceforth assumes, the right and authority to operate the collection machinery. Manifestly, in performing this function, such “county” cannot subject the entire district to a financial outlay not for the beriefit of the whole drainage enterprise, but to facilitate the performance of a duty especially enjoined upon said political subdivision.' by statute, even though, under the written concession of the parties, the expenditure was a “legal chakge -properly -made,” so far- as the “county” is concerned. Forsooth, the salary of the treasurer is a necessary arid lawful item'in collecting said ássessments; however, no part of that, financial load is, to be. carried, by .the land in the other counties.. Important is the .designation, of the treasurer -as the person-who is .to-sell-the “bends.” ' No-substitute is contemplated.

All taxpayers are entitled to enjoy the proceeds of said sale to the extent of “par with accrued interest.” Deducting charges of‘a “fiscal agent” would reduce the net result below ‘ ‘ par, ’ ’ and the weight of this, loss would ultimately be borne proportionately by all taxpayers throughout the entire district, not because of a permissive pledge of the “joint boards,” but through the action of one of them, over which the others have no domination in the certain instance. Hence, “such bonds” would not be “applied at par with accrued interest” to the payment of the “work.”

Involved in this litigation were not the costs of the improvement undertaken by the district, but rather an expense of col-, lection to be cast upon the land affected in the county perforating the duty. Avoidance: of. the local task cannot be made in this way. Statutory prohibition is impliedly, if not directly, a prevention. Said “collection” may be made in any of the authorized methods, including the sale of bonds; yet, nevertheless, it appears very clearly that the trust must be executed by each county through, by, and for itself, independent of the whole, and the burden of so doing cannot be thrown upon the others.

The joint board had no authority or right, by ratification or otherwise, to bind appellant. Approval could not make legitimate that which was invalid for lack of jurisdiction in the first instance. ■ .......

Therefore, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.-^Affirmed.

Evans, C. J., and Faville, De Graff, Albert, and Wagner, JJ., concur.

Stevens, J., not participating.  