The record-union., 1891-03-30

to confirm the proceedings alleged for the
first time in the amended petition.
The statute-Section 3-requires that
the notice shall state. among other things,
the prayer of the petition, and it is con-
tended that this notice did not state the
prayer of the petition.
But we think the notice contained every
thing necessary to q substantial compile
ance with the law.
The prayer Of the petition must be read
in connection with the petition itself in
order to understand its mean
ing, but SO read, it is clear
and intelligible, and is in effect a
prayer for the judicial examination, APP
proval and confirmation OF ALI the pro-
ceedings set out in the petition, including
those for the organization of the district,
for they, like the rest, were essential to
the legality and validity of the bonds,
and accordingly the statute (Section 81
expressly conters power and jurisdiction
upon the court in all proceedings tor the
confirmation of bonds to examine and de
termine, approve and confirm the pro-
ceedings for the organization ofthe district
as well as all other proceedings that may
affect the legality and validity of the
bonds and the order for their sale.
The prayer therefore was sufficient
when read in connection with the peti-
ton, but to have repeated it in its literal
terms in the notice would have been
meaningless-and the only way TO ''state'
it was to give its substance as was done.
OF course to a person entirely ignorant
of the law authorizing and regulating the
proceeding The notice may have been un-
intelligible, but it would have been
equally so to such q person if the prayer
OF the petition had been as fall and
specific as the allegations upon which it
was founded, and had been copied uer-
6atim in the notice.
a knowledge of the law is, however,
imputed to everyone interested in the
proceeding, and it is decided in Lent vs..
Illlson, supra, that the notices required
in cases OF this character are to be con-
strued, and aided by reference to the
statute.
SO read and construed we think that the
notice in this case was in substantial
compliance with the statute, and impaired
sufficient notice to all the world that the
Directors of Modesto Irrigation District
| No. / ,003, would, on the oath day of Aug
ust, 1885, submit the question of its cor
| porate existence and the regularity of all
its proceedings for the issuance and sale
ofits bonds, SO far as the same were set out
in its petition on file, to the Superior Court
of StaniSlauS County, and would ask said
| court to decree the regularity Of all such
proceedings; and we think that all per-
sons interested in the district being so
| petition and of the Office in which it
| remained as public record, Were
bound to take notice of its specific
| allegations, and Il they had any
objection to the confirmation of the
orders and proceedings referred to in the
prayer of the petition, that they were re-
quired to present their objections to the
court at the time and place mentioned in
the notice, or be forever. precluded-they
and their sGccessors-from questioning
! the validity of the bonds issued i'll pur-
suance of such proceedings.
But could the court, without the publi-
cation of a new notice for the statutory
period, acquire jurisdiction to examine
and make valid confirmation of pro-
ceedings not set out in the petition on file
when the original notice was published,
and to which alone it referred? Or, to
state the question more precisely, could
the court, by giving notice OF q petition
to confirm an order for the issue and sale
of bonds to the amount of 100000, ac-
quiro jurisdiction to confirm an orCier for
the issuance of bonds to the amount OF
SSC0,000? We do not think it could.
The only answer which respondent
makes upon this point to the contention
Of appellant is that he had notice of the
amended complaint; that he demurred
and answered to its allegations, and
therefore cannot be heard to object that
Olner persons ndu no nOllce.
| Of course, in ordinary proceedings in
tended to fasten a liability upon particu-
lar defendants, ana in which each may
be made Independently liable, this would
be sufficient answer. But here the pro-
| ceeding is ia rem; its object is to estab-
| lish the validity of the bonds as against
the irrigation district and all persons in
terested in the district. To be effective
! for the protection of investors or the adj
vantage of the district, the Judgment
must bind all the world. A Judgment
binding upon the appellant alone would
be in effect nullity, leaving the district
in precisely the same position il was in
before the proceeding was commenced.
Such being the case, this appellant, as a
| landowner of the district, directly inter-
ested in the price to be realized upon a
sale of its bonds, has right to insist that
the steps necessary to give the court juris-
diction to pronounce binding decree
shall be regularly taken.
And we can see no escape from the con-
clusion that this decree, SO far as it at
| tempts to confirm the order of January 3,
| 1888, for the issuance of 100000 of
the bonds of the district is erroneous and
void for want of jurisdiction. But we
| think there is no doubt that the Superior
Court had jurisdiction, acquired by full
compliance of the law, to examine into
and confirm the order of July 81, 1889, for
the issuance and sale of $780, 900 of the
bonds of the district, and that as to that
order the decree may be affirmed, if it,
and the proceedings upon which it was
founded, were regular and legal.
To sum up in this branch of the case
we hold, with reference to the points pre-
sented by appellant, as follows:
The object of the Act of March 16, 1889,
is to provide a security for investors, and
promote the advantage of the irrigation
| Il icf, ~ NV = IL
State to render a Judgment binding on all
the world as to the validity of bonds to
be offered for sale by such districts.
| To obtain such judgment the petition
should set forth the particular order or
orders for the issuance and sale of bonds,
confirmation of which is desired. How
fully the preliminary proceedings must
| be alleged is question which does not
arise here, but with respect to the organ
ization of the district it is only necessary
that its due organization and the election
of its first Board of Directors should be
alleged in general terms. The prayer OF
the petition is sufficient if it prays for the
examination, approval and confirmation
of the proceedings aforesaid for the
issuance and sale of bonds of the district,
and the notice is sufficient if it states the
substance of such prayer, and in other
respects conforms to the statute. But the
| decree of the court cannot go beyond the
orders for the issuance and sale of bonds
which are alleged in the petition, and in
case the original petition is amended by
setting out other orders for the issuance
or sale Of bonds, the court will not ac-
quire jurisdiction to confirm such orders
without the publication of a new notice
of the amended petition.
| A decree, however, confirming all the
| orders alleged in the original and amend
ed petitions is not void for want of juris-
diction as to the orders set out in the orig
inal petition merely because no new
notice has been given of the filing