The record-union., 1897-06-27
The Central District Vas Not Properly
Organized.
Points Covered by the Decision Rem.
dered by the Supreme
Court.

| trail Irrigation District under the pro-
vision of the Act of 1889, commonly
known as the Confirmation Act. The
petitioners set forth the proceedings
| leading to and terminating in the or
ganization of the district, and the pro-
| ceedings attending the issue and sale
of bonds Of the district, and asked that
these proceedings be reviewed and de-
clared valid and legal.
| Several persons interested and own
ings lands in the district appeared and
| by answer contested the validity of the
proceedings for the organization of the
district, as we'll of those for the issue
and sale of bonds
| The findings of the trial court were in
favor of the regularity and legality of
all the steps and processes of the Board
of Directors, and the judgment Of the
court followed accordingly. From that
judgment, and from the order denying
a new trial. disaffected property owners
took appeal.
One of the property owners, L. T.
DreXler, interposed to the inquiry as to
the legality of the organization of the
district a separate defense, to the eff
feet that all such inquiry was barred
by the provisions of Section 3 of the
Act of March Z, 1887 Statutes of 1881
p. 3O, as amended by the Act of March
Z, 1891 (Statutes of 1891 p. 143) A
determination on this defense, the SUI
preme Court held, was the key to the
whole matter
The court holds. without stopping to
consider just what meaning is to be
attached to the amendatory provision
of the statute of 1891, that it has no
application to proceedings instituted by
Boards of Directors on behalf of their
districts for confirmation of their or
ganization nor of their bond issues un-
der the Act of 1899
1t is next insisted that inquiry on all
questions affecting the validity of the
by the decision of the Supreme Court
in Central Irrigation District VS.. De
Lappe, 70 Cal. 351. In regard to this
point the court holds that in this in
stance there is presented not only an
other proceeding between different par
ties, but in addition the points to which
its consideration is directed are en-
tirely different from those pressed to
determination in the case of De Lappe
The final objection to a review of the
of the district by the Supreme Court
is based upon the proposition that jur-
I1sdiction to determine these matters has
by legislative enactment been vested
in the Board of Supervisors, and that
the decision of that tribunal is final
and conclusive. This, the decision re-
lates, is an enunciation of the doctrine
that where jurisdiction of even an in
| Jv-t ic,
which that court is required to ascer-
tam and settle by its decision, such de-
clsion is held to be conclusive. (Farm-
ers' Bank VS.. Board of Equalization. 81
Cal, 3lS) The court holds. however,
that the doctrine in question cannot be
invoked in the matter in question. The
finality of the decision of such inferior
tribunal it is explained rests upon the
further proposition that either expressly
or by failing to provide for review of
the decision of such inferior court. the
law effectually declares that by all 9TH
er courts it is to be regarded as conclu-
sive. Here, however the Legisla ture
py the Confirmation Act, has provided
for review under direct attack of
these very steps and processes. and
consequently for a review of the boards
! a
lidity
The contention of the appellants that
the organization of the district was IL
legal because no sufficient notice. as re-
quired by the Irrigation Act. was given.
is affirmed
The further point that petition for
organization was not signed by the re-
| qliisite number of qualified freeholders,
and that twenty-five out of the fifty
eight signers were disqualified because
they merely owned town lots, is sus-
tanned, the decision being in part as fol-
| lows:
BY including within the boundaries
OF their contemplated districts the little
| town in which their lands were situated
they the organizers) might easily. and
| probably would, at the election out-yote
the opposing owners of the agricultural
lands who might chance to be electors
and thus it would result that by the pc
titions of townspeople, only indirectly
| interested in the district and by the
vote OF other townspeople not property
owners at all, and therefore at the most
| very remotely concerned in the matter.
| thousands of acres of farming land de-
! spite the protests of owners, would be
| subjected to the burden and expense at
| tending the organization and conduct of
| such district. For it is a matter of COM
mon knowledge and part of the history
| of the records of this court, that in some
| of these districts liens to the extent of
forty and more dollars have been i'm
posed upon every acre of Land, despite
the protests of it's owners.
"Such iS NOT the rne9 nipc of fba OF
nor should an Interpretation be given
TO it which would make such practices
possible. Qualified signers to the petit
tion must be bona fide owners of agri-
cultural land, desiring to improve the
same by conducting water upon it. To
use the word DESIRE employed by the
statute, some force must be given. 1t
is unreasonable to suppose that man
| whose lot is covered by drugstore, an
other upon whose lot is a blacksmith
shop and a corral. third upon whose
lot is a residence. and the usual shrubs
and bushes of a flower garden, desire to
irrigate their lands in the sense of the
word as employed in the Wright Act"
The objection of the appellants that
the election held for the organization of
the district was void, because the proc
lamation was not published by direction
of the Board of Supervisors, is held to be
not open for consideration, and as to the
question of validity or invalidity of the
issue of bonds, the court finds it neither
necessary nor proper to pass upon.
For the reasons above enumerated,
the Judgment and order of the trial court
are reversed.
The decision was signed by Justice