The record-union., 1896-06-28
Two IMPORTANT DECISIONS.
Judge HinkSon Rendered Them Both
Yesterday.
Lands Assessed in a Reclamation Dis
trict That Were Outside of
Its Boundaries.

De read with interest by the residents
OF such districts and may save some
long and costly litigation hereafter.
The first is as follows:
In the Superior Court of the County of
Sacramento, State of California:
Reclamation District No. 341, plaintiff,
W. Union Building and Loan Associa-
ton, corporation, 1erendant.
By stipulation of counsel for the re-
spective parties this case was tried with
the case of Reclamation District No. 341,
vs. w. B. Latham, and all the evidence
submitted and testimony taken at the
trial is to be applied to each case so far
as the same is relevant, material and
competent.
After the evidence was submitted and
the cases were argued orally they were
submitted on briefs, which were after
ward filed.
This action was brought to recover
Judgment against the defendant for a
swamp land assessment which the
plaintiff caused to be levied upon and
against the land of the defendant situ-
ated in Swamp Land District No. 341
Counsel for defendant alleges a number
of grounds upon which he contends that
judgment should be fol the defendant
Among which are:
1. That the notice Of consolidation of
Districts Nos. "a and 252 into District
No. 341 was not signed by persons own
ing a majority of the land in each of
said first two named districts.
2. That the Commissioners of assess
ment not only assessed all of the land in
the district, but assessed GOO acres of
land lying outside of the district, that
Is to say, that the district contained only
0.t91 56-100 acres of land, and that they
assessed 10.303 acres.
3. That they assessed the land covered
by the leyee belonging to the district,
and over which the district has the right
Of way, at the same rate per acre as the
lands inside the levae.
4. That the Commissioners made no
allowance for the land that may be rem
dered valueless by dredging, or that
may be covered by the levee.
). That the Commissioners made no
allowance for the bitches on the inside
of the levee or other bitches in the dis
trict
6. That the assessment is a uniform
assessment per acre, and the different
elevations of the land and adaptability
to cultivation and bnefits the tracts of
land will reveive from the proposed
works of reclamation have not been ap-
portioned in the manner prescribed by
law.
Z. That the Commissioners did not
view the land in the method prescribed
by law.
S. That the Commissioners did not
consider each piece of land separately
and determine the amount of benefit 1t
would receive in proportion to the whole
amount to be expended for reclama-
ton purposes, but they simply took the
number of acreS-which defendant
claims was wrong-and divided the
sum representing the total assessment
by the sum representing the total num-
hr Of acres. and arbitrarily, and with
cut exercising discretion and judgment
upon each tract of land, apportioned a
uniform rate per acre upon each acre
of land they supposed to be in the dis
trict
9. That the process followed by the
Commissioners was simply that of ad-
dition and multiplication. That they
attempted to find the number of acres
contained in the district by an abstract
which was unverified, and as the result
proved, incorrect, so far as 1t stated the
number of acres, and divided the num-
ber of acres thus obtained into the total
sum and did not allow any deductions
on land for the levee or land being in
the navigable waters of the United
States.
10. That the Commissioners assessed
all that portion of the district lying in
the navigable waters of the United
States, and which by no means can be
made susceptible of cultivation at the
same rate per acre as they have the
fertile land inside the levee.
IL That the Commissioners assessed
all that portion of the land lying out
side of the levee and between it and the
waters edge at the same rate per acre
as they did the land inside of the levee.
AS to the first point, it is not well
taken because the said notice Of con-
solidation was signed by persons own
ing ma jority of the lands in each of
Districts Nos. "a and 252.
AS to the second point, that more
land was assessed than was contained
in the district The district was formed
by the consolidation of Districts Nos.
81 and 252 and the notice of consolida-
tion correctly describes the exterior
boundaries of these districts and recites
that District No. "a contains 46S 81
100 acres of land, and that District No
252 contains 2,32S 15-100 acres, max
ing a total, as set out in said notice, of
the lands contained in District No. 341
Of 9.797 56-100 acres, but the actual
number Of acres contained therein is
10.3O4 3O-1O0 or SOC 15-100 acres more
than is stated in said notice.
Section 34S9 of the Political Code pro-
vides, among other things, that the no.
tice of consolidation must give the ex-
terror boundaries of the districts to be
consolidated and the number of acres
contained in each.
While It is true that the statute must
be strictly pursued in levying swamp
land assessments, the notice of eonsoli-
dation correctly gave the exterior boun-
d. ries of the two districts that were
consolidated. from which 1t could read
fly be determined the number of acres
contained in District No. 341, and as
the Commissioners were not misled by
the error as to the number of acres
stated in the notice of consolidation
as being contained in the two consol-
idated districts, but assessed the true
number of acres contained therein, ii is
rot such error as would render the con-
solidation void, If that question could
be raised in a collateral proceeding
There is nothing in the evidence to
chow that the district ever acquired the
right of way for the levee; hence 1T cam
rot be contended that the land owners
&C
are not the owners of such land and
ay not cultivate such portions thereof