The record-union., 1896-01-18
Highest Of al h Leavenng Powa-Last u. s Govt Report
R>a!!a!l! a. FsSassi! FRsklIes
ABSOLUTELY pURE

Section go Nothing was done in that
respect so far as District No. 8 is con-
cerned, and / must conclude that 1t had
and has no legal existence. 1t ceased to
exist by reason of the repeal of the Act
of 1861.
We must next turn our attention to
District No. 10, and see what was its
condition on the Sth " September, 1893
District No 75 was formed in 1869 un-
der the provisions of Section 40 of the
Green Act, referred to above. That Sec
tion provided that where the holders of
evidences of title of lands not yet re-
claimed were susceptible of one mode
of reclamation district then formed
might. by filing a petition showing that
fact, in addition TO the facts set out in
Section 80 of the Act, that they might
be set apart into a separate district. A
petition was filed with the board in this
case, but it was not signed by all the
owners of the lands in the district. The
petition shows that the owners repre-
senting large acreage did not sign,
yet more than one-half of the acreage
of the proposed district was represent
ed. Section 45 reads: IF the holders of
certificates of purchase or patents for
ldIINS Wtll4in any QiSNI1Ct
previous laws, and in which the lands
have not been thoroughly reclaimed,
desire to have their lands set off from
said district they shall, in addition to
the petition required in Section 80 of
this Act, show to the board, etc"
1t is urged that the petition was in
sufficient to give the Board of Super
visors jurisdiction, for the reason that
all the owners names were not signed
to the petition. This question has been
definitely settled by our Supreme Court
in Ralston VS.. Board of Supervisors
81 Cal 592, which says all must sign.
The petition is further defective in this
that it did not state that District No. s,
out of whose boundaries No. IS was
constructed, was formed prior to May
2S, 1868; this also is a fact held to be
necessary to be stated in the petition
in order to give the board Jurisdiction
Ferran VS.. Board of Supervisors, 81
Cal. 30S; Ralston vs. Board of Super
visors, supra.) Hence the Board of Su-
pervisors never had jurisdiction of the
subject matter of the petition.
When this petition came before the
board the action taken was simply the
adoption of a motion or resolution that
the prayer Of the petition be granted
Then, conceding for the moment that
the court had Jurisdiction of the petit
ton, and that the petitioners were pro-
ceeding under Section 30 instead of Sec
ton 45 of the Green Act, and that the
existence of District no. was ignored
entirely, still the action of the board
was insufficient to give the district cor
porate existence.
Section 81 of the Act which provides
for the procedure to be adopted by the
board in such matters says, IF the
Board of Supervisors shall find upon
the hearing of such petition the state
ments therein set forth are correct and
that no land as is improperly included
on excepted from. said district they
shall note their approval on the petit
ton, which approval shall be signed
by the President of the board and at
tested by the clerk" In this case no
such finding was made and no such ap-
prOyal was noted on the petition.
The Board of Supervisors is a body
with limited jurisdiction and its juriS-
diction must appear in the record of
its proceedings. (Finch VS.. Tehama
County, 20 Cal 455; Johnson VS.. Eu-
reka County. - Nevada, 2S.)
We now come to District 213. It ap-
pears that in 1874 petition was filed
with the Board of Supervisors setting
forth that the owner of more than one
half of the acreage in the district pro-
posed to be formed desired to form
district out of District No. rs and
portion of District No. 8. This proceed
ing was had under Section 34S1, P. c.
The petition itself was not forthcom-
ing at the trial, but the minutes of the
board seetting out the proceedings,
which consisted of a recital of the petit
ton, were offered, and added is the
notation, Approved in open session of
the Board of Supervisors of Sacra-
mento County at a regular meeting
December 8, 1879 s. B. Moore, Presi-
dent of the Board of Supervisors of
Sacramento County; attest, Ham. c.
Harrison, Clerk (seaD, by w p Emery,
Deputy" No other record appears in
the boards proceeding relative to the
formation of the district and no find
ings appear that the board had any
hearing of the matter or in any way
found the facts of the petition to be
correct, as required by Section 3449,
P. c. If so. then by virtue of the au-
thority of Finch VS.. Tehama County,
% Cal 4j5, l must find that District
No. 213 never had a legal existence
1t follows then that the prayer of
the plaintiffs in this action should be
denied, and judgment entered for the
defendant.
MATT. F. JOHNSON, Judge
w. A. Gett, Jr., was attorney fer the
defendants