The record-union., 1897-01-03
Highest all in Leavenng sengthIatest U s. Govt Report
R@!a'!I! q! RskdsgT RakiRg
ABSOLUTELY PURE


| our highest courts.
There is no objection to the fact that
a particular kind of summons is pro-
vided in the section. As it is general
class Of cases that is referred to them
the summons is not special, but is
general.
A particular kind of summons is pro-
vided in cases of unlawful entry and
detainer, but who will contend that the
law is special on that account. So
different summons is provided for in
cases for affirmative relief and in ac-
items for the direct payment Of money.
The provisions of the Act supplemental
to the Wright Irrigation Act, Statutes
1889, page 112, are very similar in
every respect to this section. There
provision is made for obtaining de-
cree of the court, deciding that bonds
issued under the Act are valid and
special procedure is provided. This
Act has been upheld by our Supreme
Court, Grail VS.. Poso Irrigation District,
81 Cal. 141. Rialto Irrigation District
VS.. Brandon, 103 Cal. 1856. Nor can
see any merit in the objection that the
prescribed form of complaint is objec-
tionable. Counsel cites the case Of Peo-
pie VS.. G. P. R. r. Co., SO Cal. S93, In
support of hts position There the ac
ton was for the direct recovery of
| money due upon taxes. The Legislature
had prescribed a form of pleading that
Gid not conform to Section 421 c. c. P.
That is. 1T did not state course of ac-
tion, and that the Legislature could not
by special laws change the action in
courts of justice But for the purpose
for which this Act is intended, that Is
to give notice to the owner and permit
him to have his day in court, the form
of the complaint is ample. No judg-
| ment is taken against him; he is re-
| qUired to do NO single act in relation
| to his land, no increased obligation Is
| forced upon him, his land is in the
same condition as before in the event
| the validity of the assessment is de-
| clared, and if not valid he is freed
from the bugbear of the assessment
| No lien is created by any such judg-
ment, for the lien was completed when
| the assessment list was perfected and
| filed with the Treasurer of the county
Section 1863 P. c. / cannot reclaim a
Judgment that could have any other
effect upon him than simply to estop
| lidity of the assessment list.
| The defendant contends that the
| Judgment, not having been pied by
| plaintiff, cannot be admitted in evil
dence, and cites cases of Davis VS.
Perly, 30 Cal. 639., Cave VS.. Crafts, SO
Cal 135 and Section 161; Boone on Code
Pleading. The rule is not to be ques-
| ticned that where party desires to
avail himself of a prior judgment he
| must plead It, But think distinction
rs to be drawn between those cases and
| this. In this case the subject of con-
| trcversy is the collection of the tax and
whether it is due or not. That question
was not adjusted by the former judg-
| ment and was not an issue in that case
The Judgment is offered for the purpose
| OF showing certain fact, that is the
| legal status of the assessment, a. fact
which the section itself provides shall
be established by the Judgment; that is
the validity or Mvalidity Of the assess
nent. The plaintiff in his complaint
pleads valid assessment and here
oHerS the statutory evidence of the
Facts. He being the plaintiff could not
well have Piled the judgment and an
| ticipafed the defendant s case In the
case OF Rialto Irrigation District VS..
Brandon, cited above, a similar objec-
ton was offered to the Judgment con-
flrmfng the regularity of plaintiffs or
| gamzatlon as an irrigation district to
establish the facts therein decreed. The
court admitted the decree for the pur-
| pose OF showing the legal status of the
district. Upon an examination Of the
record in that case which now have
before me, 1 find that there the decree
was not pied. / see no difference be-
| tween that case and this and must con-
clude that that case is conTlusiye of
| this.
| Plaintiff Is entitled to Judgment for
| the amount demanded.
MATT F. JOHNSON. Judge.
| w. A. Gett was the attorney for tho
| plaintiff, the defendant being repre-
sented by Albert NJ and Hiram w
Johnson.