Imperial Valley press., 1909-02-20
WELLBORN DECISION
 IS RECONSIDERED
Court Not Sure That Water Contracts of Mutual Com
 panieS Are Illegal
Cases Involving the Heber Agreement and Number Five's Stock Reopened For Hearing on Their Merits-Re- straining Order Again in Force Pending Decision.

Judge Wellborn, of tho United States Circuit Court, has revised his opinion of last June on the validity of Contracts between the California Development Company and mutual water companies and allowed a mo- tion for rehearing in the cases of the c. D. Co., against Mutual Company No. D. The order restraining No. 5 from selling stock under the Heber agreement, which. was vacated in June, is reinstated pending decision of the case on it's merits.
 There are two cases involving the relations between the water compan ies One is a suit by the c. D. Go. to rescind the Heber contract, under which water is supplied to No. ,, and the other is a suit for possession of G5,00O shares of No. 5's stock, which inc c. D. Company claims under an assignment cancelled by the Heber agreement
 In the opinion accompanying the de- cison of last June, the court said of the contracts by which the c. D. Co. secured control of the stock of mu- tual companies that they were but devices to enable complainant to eX act of each settler for the right and privilege of using water at the an nual rate mentioned, an additional precedent compensation, under the 9uise of the sale of stock
 "I am further satisfied that said de- vices for additional compensation are unlawful.
 The Mexican and water companies were but subordinate agencies called into existence by complainant (the California Development Company to aid in effectuating the distribution of it's water in pursuance of a precon- ceived scheme, which involved the unlawful element of compensation in , addition to established rates In the matter of resembling the con tract by which the development com pany agreed to supply water to No. company Judge Wellborn held that, even though the contract might be illegal, the development company could not ask for a recission without offering to return to the water com pany proceeds already realized under the contract amounting to Sl7,6S0 for sales of water to July 1, 1906, and sales of 35,633 shares of stock at an estimated value of $20 a share. Only the contract of No. 5 with the c. D. Go. was directly at issue In the { case, and therefore the courts re- marks on the illegality of the method of disposing of water stock generally were merely expressions of opinion, not judgments annuling the contracts. | The relations of mutual companies, other than No. 5, with the c. D. Co. were not actually disturbed; the court only intimated what it's judgment would be if cases involving the con tracts should be presented for decis- ion
 Judge Wellborn now states that additional authorities submitted by the c. D. O. in support of its motion for rehearpg lead to the concluson that the decision of last June was CT roneous and that in the light of a number of late decisions and author ities quoted by the petitioner its con tentions may prove conclusive. While this decision does not affect the merits of the case, which is yet to be heard, it gives the development company further opportunity to present its law points.
 Judge Wellborn says: "The ques- tion is of such importance and the authorities are so involved that final determination may be reserved until the hearing on the merits"
 ANGEL CITY FOLK HERE.