46-146. Claims against district; warrants; interest; payment; procedure.
No claim shall be paid by the district treasurer until the same shall have been allowed by the board of directors and only upon warrants signed by the president and countersigned by the secretary. If the district treasurer does not have sufficient money on hand to pay such warrant when presented for payment, he or she shall endorse thereon not paid for want of funds and the date when presented over his or her signature. From the time of such presentation until paid such warrants shall draw interest payable when redeemed or annually at the discretion of the board of directors. Whenever there is no cash on hand in the district treasury for the payment of general fund warrants when presented, the board of directors may issue from time to time general fund warrants in denominations not greater than ten thousand dollars to the aggregate amount required. In no case shall such warrants be in an amount greater than ninety percent of the general fund levy for the current year. Such warrants shall be drawn on the general fund levy for the current year and be payable to the irrigation district. The board of directors may sell or discount the same to the best advantage possible, but not at a discount to exceed ten percent. The board shall deposit the proceeds of such sale in some local bank, capital stock financial institution, or qualifying mutual financial institution in the name of the district, subject to the check of the chairperson of such district, countersigned by the secretary, in payment of any claim or claims ordered paid out of such fund by the board of directors. Section 77-2366 shall apply to deposits in capital stock financial institutions. Section 77-2365.01 shall apply to deposits in qualifying mutual financial institutions.
Source
Annotations
In absence of levy, officers of irrigation district are without power to issue warrants. Elliott v. Calamus Irr. Dist., 120 Neb. 714, 235 N.W. 95 (1931).
Irrigation district, organized after county board was induced to believe that law was complied with, is corporation de facto, and liable on warrants. Draver v. Greenshields & Everest Co., 29 F.2d 552 (8th Cir. 1928).
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.