The herald., 1897-03-23
Secundio FIiguera Must Pay Or Go to
Jail
PerpIexing Case of Supposed Lunatic'
Charles Gishwiller
Mrs. Sepulveda Renews Her Claim to the
Palos Verdes Rancho - Unpleasant
Matrimonial Bonds Severed-Mrs.
Livingston Free at Present

An important opinion in one OF the
famous San Diego water cases was
handed down by United States circuit
Judge Ross yesterday. While the decl-
sion does not settle the question IN dls-
pute between the contestants IL uoes
settle the question of the jurisdiction Oh
the circuit court in such matters anu
holds that the court has jurisdiction.
The opinion relates to the hearing OF
executions in the case of Charles H.
I,anning, receiver of the san Diego
Land and Town company VS. ii. Z. Us
horne ct al, which had been filed by the
complainant in answer to an amendeo
answer filed before by the defenoants.
The bill in this case, to which there
are several defendants. was filed
January 6, 1896. 1t alleges that the
complainant was duly appointed re-
ceiyer of all the property OF the san
Diego Land and Town company on sep
tember 4, 1895, and was invested with
full power to manage and operate the
same The property consisted, in addl-
t;on 70 certain tracts of land in san
Dieeo county, of a water system which
had its source of supply from the sweet
water river, and including the sweet
water dam. The company supplies wa
fer to National City and surrounding
territory.
The question involved was the COM
n;ainant's right to raise the water
rates. 1t was claimed that this was
necessary to pay the company an in
come Of per cent on the amount actual
ly invested The company therefore
claimed the right to raise the rate from
$3.50 to 81 per acre, and pointed to the
fact that the board of supervisors for the
county had not passed any ordinance
regulating water rates.
For the reasons stated the company
gave notice that on January l, 1895,
rental of 81 per acre per annum for water
supplied would be established. Inc
consumers refused to pay this new rate
ard maintained that neither the COM
pany nor the receiver had any legal
right to increase the amount of rental
paid by them, and held that the rate of
So. 50 per acre already established should
remain until another rate be established
by the board of supervisors
The receiver for the company then
shut the water off, and informed the
consumers that it would remain of un-
til they complied with the demands or
the new rate. The defendants threat
ened to commence suit in the superior
court to compel the receiver to turn on
and furnish water for their lands, and
also for damages. The receiver then
asked that the defendants be enJoined
from prosecuting in the state courts, ana
that they be required to set up their
claims in the circuit court; also that ne
be declared to have the right to increase
90 ha hor
to 81 per acre per annum, and that the
defendants be required to pay it.
The defendants filed an answer to this
bill. upon which they set up various
grounds why the San Diego Land and
Town company and its receiver became
legally bound to supply them with
water for $3.50 per acre. Exceptions to
this answer filed by the complainant
were sustained by the court.
The defendants subsequently filed
an amended answer to which ex-
ceptions for insufficieny and i'm
pertinence were urged by the
complaint. Upon the hearing of
these exceptions the counsel for
the defendants strenuously objected
to the jurisdiction of the court, but Judge
Ross states that he is unable to see the
least ground for their contention.
The opinion points out that the real
subject of the controversy is the assert
ed right on the part of the Land and
Town company to say at what rate ii
will furnish water to defendants for the
purpose of irrigation in the absence of
any action on the part of the board OF
supervisors of the county. The court
holds that when any court of equity ap-
points a receiver to take possession of
and hold the property of a corporation
that court assumes the administration of
the estate. The possession of the re-
ceiver in the possession of the court and
the court itself holds and administers
the estate through the receiver as its Of
fcer. The taking possession by this
court of the property of the insolvent
corporation, and the subsequent suit by
its officer to enforce the alleged rights
of that corporation draws to the juris-
diction of this court the entire subject
matter, which cannot be taken away or
interfered with by any subsequent suit
in any other court
The court orders that the case be re-
stored to the calendar for further hear
ing in respect to the effects upon the
merits of the case of the act of the legis-
lature passed at the present session re-
lating to the establishment and raising
Of water rates.