Bidwell Municipal Utility District v. Knott

THOMPSON, J. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to draw her warrant and pay the Bidwell Municipal Utility District the sum of $5,877.88, being the second instalment of taxes collected for the fiscal year of 1935-1936, and which is now held by the county of Butte for the benefit of the utility district pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Utility District Act. (Stats. 1921, p. 245; 2 Deering’s Gen. Laws of 1931, p. 3650, Act 6393.)

The Bidwell Municipal Utility District was duly organized pursuant to law in 1934. It is located in Butte County. The board of directors of that district, by resolution, fixed the rate and amount of taxes to be assessed and collected on the property included therein for the fiscal year of 1935-1936 pursuant to the provisions of section 20 of the Municipal Utility District Act. The taxes for that year were regularly levied and collected by Butte County in accordance thercAvith. The first instalment of taxes was paid to the district as provided by law. The second instalment of taxes amounting to the sum of $5,877.88 is now held by the county of Butte, and upon demand the respondent, auditor of that county, refuses to draw her warrant or pay to the district any part of that sum. It is conceded the Bidwell Municipal Utility District was regularly organized and that the taxes in question were assessed and collected in the manner provided by law and are now held in the county of Butte for the credit of the district. The district has become and now is an operating utility district and has incurred obligations with relation thereto which are unpaid.

In October, 1935, the qualified electors and property owners in the utility district signed and filed with the directors of the district a petition demanding that they call an election for the purpose of dissolving the district. The directors failed to call the election. A petition for a writ of mandamus was thereafter presented to the Superior Court of Butte County to.compel the calling of the election. Upon hearing that petition for a Avrit of mandamus the trial court determined that the petition for an election was defective and the writ was denied. In December, 1935, a second petition was signed and filed with the directors by the electors of that district again urging the calling of an election to [434]dissolve the district. The directors failed and refused to comply with the second petition. An election has not been called. A second petition for a writ of mandamus to require the calling of an election for that purpose was filed. The court held that the writ should issue and instructed the directors to call the election as prayed for. Judgment in that proceeding was rendered May 14, 1936. From the last-mentioned judgment the district has appealed. That proceeding is still pending and the election has not yet been called.