The San Francisco call., 1896-12-19
TWICE ONES TWO,
SAYS THE COURT
Mathematics Applied to
Turlock Irrigation
Bonds.
Lands Were Advertised for Sale
to Pay Interest Money
Claimed Due.
Stockholders Now Have Securel an
Order for the Renewal of
IN Injunction.

The sale of realty belonging to stock
holders of the Turlock irrigation district
for failure to pay an assessment to raise
interest payments on the bonds of the
district will be stayed. This was decided
practically by the Supreme Court yester-
day in the case of Hughson ct al. VS.. Crane.
The last named, Crane, was the collector
of the Turlock irrigation district, and
advertised the property of several OF the
stockholders for sale because they were
delinquent in their assessments. They
secured a temporary injunction against
Crane He demurred to the proceedings
in some particular. Now the Supreme
Court has instructed the Superior Court
to overrule the demurrer, which the Supe-
rlor Court previously sustained, and also
has reversed the order by which the in
junction against Crane was dissolved.
The Supreme Court finds, as the result
of little figuring, that the stockholders
were justified in not paving the assess
ment levied 10 provide the interest on the
bonds. This figuring is as follows:
Deducting from 1924, 900, which is alleged
to be the amount OF bonds in question In the
case the sum OF $15O,000, the amount OF
bonds (which are specifically shown to have
been Illegally delivered to Gorrill," }" and there
remains only 1914, 600 in bonds for which an
asses sment could be levied. The total am ount
OF the assessment was over $4,000. The in
terest on 1874. O00 at the rate OF per cent
per annum, would amount to $23, zoo, ana
when the assessment was laid there was
nearly $4,000 in the treasury applicable to
pay the asses sment.
The wording of the opinion, which was
written by Justice Harrison, was clear
concerning the liability of the stockhold-
ers for this particular assessment, being
as follows: "If the facts set forth in the
complaint are true they sufficiently lustl-
fed the refusal of the plaintiffs to pay. the
assessment, and call upon the defendant
either TO deny their existence or re-estab-
lish other facts that will give him the
right to collect the assessment by the sale
of the plaintiffs lands"
The validity of the bonds was not
brought into question in this suit and the
Supreme Court called attention to the
fact. The joining of Gorrill or Hickman
in the suit it was also said by the court
was not necessary. l.. NJ. Hickman YVES
the man who in 1892 bought $550,0O0
bonds OF the original issue of 5000, ,0OO
at the rate OF 80 per cent OF their full
value, with the agreement that he was to
pay the district for all that he received
above 80 per cent after deducting the cost
of selling them. He did not pay fer any
bonds. Gorrill was the contractor who
built the dam ior the irrigation system
and took $3.50, 900 in bonds in payment for
his work. Hickman was merely the agent
of the board of directors for the sale OF
the bonds. The decision in this case Will
prove. interesting throughout the San
Joaquin Valley and to all persons con-
nected with California irrigation districts.
either as stockholders or holders OF the
bonds