The record-union., 1898-06-03
AN INTERESTING DECISION.
MRS. HENSLEY LOSES HER AN
DRUS ISLAND CASE.
- Judgment Against Reclama-
t10n District Cannot be
Collected.

The Supreme Court of California filed
decision Tuesday last which has been
eagerly looked for by the owners or
reclaimed lands on the river.
The facts briefly are, that some years
ago, when the residents of Andrus ISL
and We're engaged in constructing their
reclamation works ditching machine
was brought through the levee on Mrs.
HenSley'S land, to be used in excaVatlng
and constructing the central drainage
canal of the district. 1t was contended
by Mrs. Hensley that the cut made in
the levee by the machine While going
upon the ground increased the flow OF
seepage SO that her lands We're 1nun-
dated and, further, that at the point
where the ditcher entered the district
she had a private pumping plant which
enabled her to free some of her land
from water; that the ditcher destroyed
this as we'll as her sump, ETC., prevent
ing her thereby from freeing her land
from water, in consequence of which
she lost her crop and trees, and was
damaged to the extent of $5,O71 30.
When the matter came on for hearing
before Judge Catlin some two years ago
general demurrer was interposed on
behalf of the district that the complaint
did not state a cause of action. and
that from the facts as stated in the
complaint the district was not legally
liable for the damage Mrs. Hensley
claimed she had sustained The court
sustained the demurrer interposed by
the district, and, as the facts of Mrs.
Hensley's claim We're fully stated in the
complaint, denied Mrs. Hensley the
irpt, Al~%
Mrs. Hensley appealed, and the Su-
preme Court in passing upon her con-
tention fled the following opinion:
In the Supreme Court of the State of
California. Filled May 81, 1889 De-
partment Two. Mary A. Hensley,
plaintiff and appellant VS.. Reclamation
District No. 556, defendant and re-
spondent. (Sac. No. 322)
The court below sustained a general
demurrer to the complaint and rem
dered judgment for defendant From
this judgment plaintiff appeals.
1t is averred that defendant is cor
poration organized and existing under
and by virtue of the Political Code of
the State of California, made and pro-
vided for the formation and organiza-
tion of reclamation districts" and that
plaintiff is the owner of a certain tract
of land included within the district for
the reclamation of which the defendant
was organized The gist of the alleged
cause of action is that while the de-
fendant was bringing "ditcher" upon
the land of plaintiff for the purpose of
constructing canal through said land,
the defendant ''negligently and care
lessly cut through a levee upon said
land of PLAINTIFF and negli-
gently and carelessly destroyed a GER
tain trough or sump connected with
the pumping plant of said plaintiff -
and thereby prevented said plaintiff
from drawing off from said land the
water which annually collected thereon
during the wet season. and that "by
reason Of such negligence of defend
ant water collected and remained on
said land and destroyed a number of
fruit trees to plaintiffs damage in the
sum of S5,011 30. There is a second
count in the complaint. but the cause of
the alleged damage in both counts is
that defendant in proceeding to take a
dredger on to the land for the purpose
of excavating canal negligently al
lowed the dredger to cut a levee and
thus injured pumping plant of plaint-
iff SO that she was afterward unable
pumping plant The alleged damage
does not seem to be consequential to the
work which the defendant was engaged
in, namely. making the canal. but was
the result of preliminary act, namely,
taking the dredger to the place where
the work of making the canal was to
be done.
There is a great deal of discussion in
the briefs about the responsibility of
municipal corporations for damage done
by the careless acts Of their agents but
it does not seem to be necessary to con-
slider those questions here. Reclama
ton districts have been organized in
this State under various statutes and
the provisions CT the statutes have diff
fered materially from each other. In
some of them much greater powers
We're given the district, and much
greater liabilities imposed than in 9TH
ers. This matter is quite fully discussed
in the opinion of Mr.. Justice Temple in
People VS.. Reclamation District No.
El1 011 Cal. I'D. In the case at bar
the only averment pointing, to the char
acter, power and responsibilities of
the respondent is that it was organized
under the provisions of the Political
Code. 1t is not necessary to deter
mine whether or not districts formed
under the Political Code can be prop
erly called corporations. They have
been called quasi public corporations.
They are at least public agencies.
people VS.. Reclamation District No.
551, supra. D. 121) But If considered
corporations they have only such pow
ers and have only such liabilities as are
prescribed by the law which creates
them. They are not corporations or
ganized under the provisions of the
Civil Code. Their characters are deter
mined by the provisions of the Politi-
cal Code, from which they derive what
ever legal existence they have. The
law which creates them does not any
where provide that they may be sued.
and they can sue only for one purpose;