The record-union., 1897-11-12
IRREGULARLY ORGANIZED.
DECISION AGAINST RECLAMA-
TION DISTRICT 1856.
The Supreme Court Affrms the
Judgment Of Judge
Catlin.

CaGl1n.
The Supreme Court has filed decis-
ion affirming the judgment OF Judge
Catlin in the case of the people against
Reclamation District 1876 and certain
persons (appellants). The action was
brought by Lawyer w. A. Gett, Jr., on
relation of the Attorney General, 10
disorganize the district, on the ground
that it was not properly organized. The
decision of the Supreme Court recites
all the facts in the case. 1t says:
This is proceeding by quo warranto
20 exclude the defendants from all
corporate rights. A demurrer to the
complaint was oveTruled and defend
ants answered. When the case WAS
called for trial defendants moved for
Judgment on the pleadings on the
ground that the complaint did not state
facts sufficient to constitute a cause Of
action, in that, though the complaint
averred that defendants were usurping
the functions of corporation, it is not
alleged in what such usurpation con-
sists. This motion was denied.
Judgment passed for plaintiff upon
the trial, and defendants appeal from
the judgment and from the order deny
ing motion for new trial.
1. Defendants contend that the com
plaint is insufficient because it states
only a conclusion of law and does not
state any reason why the defendant
corporation is invalid, and that it is
settled law in this State that in quo
warranto proceedings the complai 1t
must allege specifically the defects in
the formation of corporation. Citing
People VS.. Board, ETC., 81 Cal. 655;
Hedges VS.. Dem, - Cal. 500; Spauld-
ing VS.. Wesson, 81 Cal 141; Ohm vs..
San Francisco, 90 Cal. 450) None of
the cases cited were quo warranto
cases
1t seems to be we'll settled that an
information to oust a pretended munici-
pal corporation from the exercise of
corporate franchises need only allege
that such corporation is exercising them
without lawful authority. 1t was said
IN People VS.. Cooper, 139 Ill. 461, that
the sole purpose of the information is
to require the defendants to show by
what warrant they are holding and ex-
ercising the office. The rule
Of pleading in cases of this character is
that, where an information is filed 10
test the question of intrusion or usurpa-
ton Of an office, it is sufficient to allege
generally that the defendant is in pos
session of the office without lawful au
thority" The rule thus stated is sus-
tanned by ample authority. High on
Eek. Rem, Sec. 713; Palmer vs. Wood
bury, IA Cal. 43; Flynn VS.. Abbott, 1e
Cal 339; Town of Enterprise VS. State
- Fla. 12S; People VS.. Mcintyre, 1C
Mont. l66, and Peolpe VS.. Clayton,
Utah, III. In the last-named case the
question is fully considered and the
authorities reviewed. The only excep-
tion we have found is where the infor-
nation is not by the Attorney -Genel al
but is upon the relation of a private
person contesting the disputed Office
state ex rel. Cooper VS.. Hamilton, 2s
Neb. r. 1873.
:. The court found that the board OF
supervisors had no Jurisdiction to form
the district, and that it was not legally
organized. This finding is sought tC
be sustained by plaintiff upon several
grounds, only one of which we deem tc
possess merit.
1t is claimed that the publication ot
the petition required by Section 80 ot
the Act Of March 2S, 1868 Statutes OF
1868, p. 800. under which the corpora
ton was organized, is fatally defective
The objection was made at the trial but
was oyerruled. The affidavit is as fol.
lows: THAT true copy ol
the annexed petition (Which is made
part of this affidavit) has been pub
lished in said paper (the Sacramento
Daily RecordO once a week for foul
weeks, commencing the 9Th day of De-
cember, 1871, to and including the 2c
day Of January, 1872" The Act, Sec.
ton 30. says: THE petition
shall be published for four weeks nex
preceding the hearing thereof in some
newspaper published in the county
etc"
The petition was heard January 3
1872. From December 9th toJanuary I'd
both days inclusive, there are exactly
four weeks. "A week consists Of sever
consecutive days" political Code, Sec.
ton o2oS) If the publication had beer
IN a weekly paper, commencing on De.
cenber 9th, and had been repeated or
the 18th, 18th, 26th and January ID
II would have satisfied the statute L
was in daily paper, however, and the
affidavit does not show the intervening
Gays on which the publication wa:
made, nor that it was made in each is
sue of the paper. 1t states that the pc.
tition was published once a week fol
four weeks, commencing December 3tl
to and including January ID Givins
the affidavit the very liberal eonstrdc
ton that the publication is shown t,
have occurred at regular intervals o.
one week. which is the utmost that car
be said of IL, was this sufficient? TIL,
question is presented: Where the stat
ute is silent as to the number or fre.
quency of publications required, bu
requires publication of the petition II
some newspaper for four weeks mex
preceding the hearing thereof" is pub
lication once a week in a daily newsna
per sufficient?
The question was suggested in VIII
Jams vs.. Sacramento County, IS Cal.
231, where a similar statutory require
aent OF publication in a similar cas-,
was before the court. but the point wa.
not decided. IT was held, however, tha
the statutory publication was one o
the jurisdctional steps in the proceed
irgs and unless the petition was pub
lshed in accordance with the require