The record-union., 1891-03-30
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

Filled at Sacramento, March 10, 1871
Appeal from the Superior Court of
Stanislaus sCounty-Wm.O. Minor, Judge.
For appellant, George w. Schell, c. W.
Eastin and L. B. Bond
For respondent, c. C. Wright and C. A.
Stonesifer; A. L. Rhodes of counsel.
IN BANK.
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE MODESTO IRRIGATION
DISTRICT,
Respondent, No. 1883.
VS.,
WILLIAM TREGEA,
Appellant.
This is a special proceeding instituted
IN pursuance of the Act of March l6, 1889
tStats. 1889, p. 2l2), for the purpose OF OBJ
tanning judicial confirmation of the va
Hdity of certain bonds of the respondent,
which it has ordered to be issued and
sold.
The Act referred to is suppleme ntal to
the Act entitled IAN Act to provide for
the organization and government of irrl-
cation districts, and to provide for the ac-
QUESTION of water and other property, and
for the distribution of water thereby for
irrigation purposes" approved March Z,
1887, and commonly known as the Wright
Law. Stats. 1887, p. 49,
The original Act, as its title imports,
provides for the organization of irrigation
districts, and for the adoption and carry
ing cut of plans for the irrigation of the
lands embraced therein. Among other
things so provided for is the issuance and
sale of the bonds of the several districts.
Before any such bonds can be issued or
sold, the directors of the district are re-
Quired to submit the proposition to vote
of the electors at special election, and to
order and give notice of such election in a
manner particularly prescribed.
AS the validity of the bonds, when
issued, depends upon the regularity of
the proceedings of the board, and upon
the ratification of the proposition by a
majority of the electors, it is matter of
common knowledge that investors have
been unwilling to take them at their par
value while all the facts affecting their
validity remain the subject of question
and dispute.
To meet this inconvenience-fo the Sc
curity of investors, and to enable the irri-
CATION districts to dispose of their bonds
on advantageous terms-the supplemental
Act, under which this proceeding was in
stituted, was passed.
1t provides that the Board Of Directors
of any irrigation district may commence
special proceeding in, and by which the
proceedings of said board, and of said
district, providing for and authorizing
the issue and sale of the bonds Of said dis
trict, whether said bonds, OF any OF them,
have or have not been sold, may be judi
cially examined, approved and con-
frmed.'
The proceeding is commenced by the
filing of petition in the Superior Court
of the county in which the lands OF the
district, or some portion thereof are stu
ate, praying the confirmation OF the pro-
ceedings of the directors; whereupon the
court is required to make and publish an
order stating the prayer of the petition
md tiyinD q time and nlann for. the bnnr-
ing.
Any person interested may demur to
or answer the allegations of the petition,
and the issues of law and fact are tried
and determined by the court as in other
cases, under the ordinary rules of prac-
tice.
The court has power upon the hearing
to examine and determine the legality
and validity of the organization Of the
district and all matters affecting the le-
gality and validity of the bonds and the
order for their sale, and has power to con-
firm the proceedings III whole or in part,
according to the facts.
In this case the proceeding in the Supe-
rior Court resulted in a judgment affirm
ing the regularity of the organization oi
the respondent as an irrigation district
and the legality and validity of its orders
Tor the issuance Of its bonds to the amount
of eight hundred thousand dollars, and
for the sale of four hundred thousand
dollars thereof.
The defendant, a resident and property
owner of the district-who contested the
validity of the respondents proceedings
appeals from the judgment of the Supe-
= Nor Court and from an order denying his
motion for new trial.
Numerous errors are assigned and ar
gued, but they are all involved in, and
may be disposed of. by a consideration OF
a few general propositions:
First-It is contended that there was no
sufficient notice of this proceeding to
give the Superior Court jurisdiction to
render a judgment binding upon the
lands of the district and their owners.
There seems to be claim under this
head, though it is not particularly insisted
upon, that the notice prescribed by the
statute is not sufficient.
The object OF the proceeding is of
course to compel every person interested
in the district, and whose property is to
be bound, for the payment of its debts, to
come into court, and, within the time
limited, present and submit to judicial
investigation any and all objections he
may have to the regularity of the organi-
Zation OF the district, and all other matters
affecting the validity of the bonds, so that
1t may be finally and conclusively deter
mined by a judgment, which neither he
nor his successors in interest can there
after question, whether such bonds are
legal and valid or not.
Notice must therefore be given to all
persons so interested. But it need not be
a personal notice. 1t not only may be-
but to secure the ends of the statute il
must be, general notice by publication
in some form. tits unnecessary to take
up time in the discussion OF this question
which has long since ceased to be an
open one in this State. Without referring
to many earlier and later decisions bear
inCr nr loss 6irnat1xr NJ
1t is sufficient to say that the statute and
proceedings under review in Lent VS.
Tillson az Cal. 404), were in all essential
respects similar as to their objects, and
the substance of their provisions to the
statutes and proceedings in question here
and the notice of this proceeding pre-
scribed by the statute of 1889, is, for every
purpose, ample and beneficial as the
notice to property owners which was in
that case held sufficient to give validity
to the proceedings by which the lands OF
the local assessment district were sub
jected to lien for the payment of the
Dupont street bonds. The provisions OF
the supplemental Act in regard to this
matter are found in Section 3. Statutes OF
1889, p. 2l2, which reads rs follows: "The
court shall fix the time for the hearing OF
said petition, and shall order the clerk OF
the court to give and publish a notice oi
the filing of said petition. The notice
shall be given and published in the same
manner, and for the same length of time
that notice of special election provided
TOR by said Act, to determine whether the
bonds of said district shall be issued, is
required to be given and published. The
notice shall state the time and place fixed
Tor the hearing of the petition and the
prayer of the petition, and that any per-
son interested in the organization of said
olstrict, or in the proceedings for the issue
&c Ia nsNE L =