Metcalfe v. Merritt
Before: James
Synopsis
Reclamation District—Public Corporation—State Agency—Limited Powers.—A reclamation district is a public, as distinguished from a private, corporation. It acts as a state agency, invested with certain limited powers, and restricted to the doing of a particular work, public in its nature. It is not a municipal corporation, possessing in any degree general powers of government, but nevertheless, within the limits of the authority granted to it, it exercises public functions.
Id.—Scheme op Organization—System of Reclamation.—The scheme of the organization of a reclamation district comprehends a complete system for the doing of reclamation work, with all of the incidental power to compel the payment of assessments levied, and secure the accomplishment of the intended project of reclamation.
Id.—Public Corporations—Collateral Attack upon Organization not Permitted.—The existence of public corporations can only be called in question by the power from which they derive their right to be. An attack, collaterally made, with a view to testing the regularity of their existence or organization, will not'be permitted.
Ib.—Action to Compel Payment for Bonds of Reclamation District —Collateral Attack upon Petition for Organization.—In an action to compel payment for bonds of a reclamation district purchased by the defendant, a collateral attack upon the sufficiency of the petition for organization of the reclamation district, the petition of which was approved by the board of supervisors, is collateral and unauthorized, where there is nothing in the terms of his bid which would allow him to question its organization collaterally.
Id.—Bid for Bonds—Condition as to Legality and Validity—Charge upon Property—De Facto Corporation.—A bid for bonds of a reclamation district “contingent upon the bonds being legal and valid,” is satisfied, as a condition, if the bonds are binding upon the property of the district. That condition is met where the district had a de facto existence when it issued the bonds. As a de facto corporation, the acts of its officers and trustees were binding; and the purchaser of bonds of such a district would acquire a lien against the property thereof; and it matters not to him whether the district was duly organized or not.
Id.—Untenable Objection to Organization of District—Sufficiency of Description in Petition—Reference to Maps.—An objection to the sufficiency of the description of lands in the petition for the organization of the reclamation district is not tenable, where the description of a ranch by name refers to a map as an exhibit, which renders it sufficiently certain to sustain a deed thereof, and where the description of town lots therein refers to a map as an exhibit, from the scale of which can be calculated exactly the quantity of land contained in each lot.
JAMES, J.
Plaintiff in April, 1910, as treasurer of the county of Santa Barbara, offered for sale certain bonds of a reclamation district known as Reclamation District No. 798, which district had theretofore been organized under the provisions of section 3446 et seq., Political Code. In response to the offer defendant submitted a bid to purchase ten of the bonds for the price of $1,021.20. Ten per cent of this amount he deposited with his bid. Upon his offer being accepted demand was made that he pay the remainder of the purchase price, which he refused to do. This action was then brought to compel payment for the bonds.
In the complaint the various steps taken preliminary to the organization of the reclamation district, with the proceedings had subsequent thereto, including those for the issuance and sale of the bonds in question, are set out in detail. It is alleged, referring to the offer of defendant to purchase the ten bonds, that the bid “was made contingent upon said bonds being legal and valid.” A general demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint was presented and overruled. Defendant failed to answer and judgment was entered against him for the amount "prayed for. From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted. The defendant by his demurrer sought to call into question the regularity of the organization of the district, directing
[246]
his attack solely to the original petition filed with the board of supervisors, by which the proceedings for the formation of the district were initiated. He contends that this petition was insufficient to give to that board jurisdiction to act, in that certain facts required to be stated therein were not set forth. Section 3446 of the Political Code provides that the petition shall contain, among other things, “a description of the lands by legal subdivisions, or other boundaries, the county in which they are situated, the number of acres in the proposed district and in each tract.” The particular objection made, touching the sufficiency of the petition, is that it did not describe all of the land embraced within the proposed district by legal subdivisions or other boundaries, and that the acreage in certain parcels was not stated.
The board of supervisors approved the petition, and all of the subsequent steps required to be taken by the statute are conceded to have been taken, and to have been in regular form; they so appear to have been, as alleged in the complaint. Trustees were selected to manage the affairs of the district; work of reclamation was undertaken; indebtedness was incurred and money expended. The district became, and continued to be up to and after the time the bonds were issued, and still asserts the right to act as, a duly organized reclamation district. It had an existence
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)