Colorado § 37-41-119 - Bonds - payment - lien.

§ 37-41-119. Bonds - payment - lien.

The bonds, and the interest thereon, and all payments due or to become due to the United States under any contract between the district and the United States accompanying which bonds of the district have not been deposited with the United States shall be paid by revenue derived from an annual assessment upon the real property of the district, and the real property of the district shall be and remain liable to be assessed for such payments. Public lands of the United States within any district shall be subject to taxation for all purposes of this article to the extent provided by the act of congress approved August 11, 1916, upon full compliance therewith by the district.

Source: L. 05: p. 259, § 17. R.S. 08: § 3456. L. 17: p. 302, § 7. C.L. § 1985. CSA: C. 90, § 393. CRS 53: § 149-1-17. C.R.S. 1963: § 150-1-17.

ANNOTATION

The provisions of this section measure the obligations of the district and the property owners therein. Divide Creek Irrigation Dist. v. Hollingsworth, 72 F.2d 859 (10th Cir. 1934).

This section calls for a construction which creates a lien by necessary implication without express language to that effect. Thomas v. Patterson, 61 Colo. 547, 159 P. 34 (1916).

Upon default in payment of interest, sole remedy of bondholder is mandamus. Under the provisions of this section, the sole remedy of the holder of the bonds of an irrigation district, if default is made in the payment of interest, is by mandamus. Henrylyn Irrigation Dist. v. Thomas, 64 Colo. 413, 173 P. 541 (1918); Alpha Corp. v. Denver-Greeley Valley Irrigation Dist., 110 Colo. 179, 132 P.2d 448 (1942); Kiles v. Trinchera Irrigation Dist., 136 F.2d 894 (10th Cir. 1943).

An ordinary action demanding judgment for money will not lie. Henrylyn Irrigation Dist. v. Thomas, 64 Colo. 413, 173 P. 541 (1918); Alpha Corp. v. Denver-Greeley Valley Irrigation Dist., 110 Colo. 179, 132 P.2d 448 (1942); Kiles v. Trinchera Irrigation Dist., 136 F.2d 894 (10th Cir. 1943).

Under this section, bonds shall be paid by annual assessments on the lands in the district sufficient to pay the principal and the interest of the bonds. Gas Sec. Co. v. Nile Irrigation Dist., 293 F. 365 (8th Cir. 1923).

The method provided by the act for the payment of the bonds and interest is exclusive, and the court cannot require the board to depart from the method prescribed for it in the act. Norris v. Montezuma Valley Irrigation Dist., 240 F. 825 (D. Colo. 1916).

The statute makes no provision for interest after the obligations are due, and bondholders must be held to have acquired their bonds and coupons with that understanding. Denver-Greeley Valley Irrigation Dist. v. McNeil, 80 F.2d 929 (10th Cir. 1934).

The lien of the bonds is exhausted upon sale of the lands at a tax sale after default in a assessment made to satisfy the entire indebtedness on the bonds. Sumers v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 117 Colo. 57, 184 P.2d 144 (1947).

The courts of the United States are not deprived of the power to enforce the right because it is rooted in a state statute which prescribes a different method of enforcement in the state courts. Divide Creek Irrigation Dist. v. Hollingsworth, 72 F.2d 859 (10th Cir. 1934).

A nonresident may enforce right in federal court. While appellee's right is measured by this section and the Colorado decisions construing it, neither state statute nor decision can prevent appellee, a nonresident, from enforcing that right in the courts of the United States, nor control the procedure of such courts. Divide Creek Irrigation Dist. v. Hollingsworth, 72 F.2d 859 (10th Cir. 1934).

Mandamus available in federal court only after right has ripened into judgment. In the federal courts mandamus is an ancillary remedy, available in such instances as this, only after the right has ripened into judgment. An action to adjudicate the existence of the right is a necessary step in the enforcement of that right by mandamus. Divide Creek Irrigation Dist. v. Hollingsworth, 72 F.2d 859 (10th Cir. 1934).

Where there are two issues of bonds, and single levy of taxes, to pay "the interest which may become due on the bonds of the district" during a specified year, largely in excess of the interest due on the first issue, but not sufficient to discharge what accrues upon the two, the tax collected is to be apportioned to the holders of the two issues, in the proportion that the total amount collected bears to the total amount of the interest falling due during the year. Thomas v. Patterson, 61 Colo. 547, 159 P. 34 (1916).