People Ex Rel. Fogg v. Perris Irrigation District

HARRISON,J.

—The present action was brought against

the

defendant by the attorney-general, under section 803 of the Code of Civil Procedure, charging it with the usurpation and unlawful exercise of the powers of a legally organized irrigation district, and asking a judgment declaring that the proceedings under which it claimed to have been organized were illegal and void, and that its powers and franchise be forfeited. An answer denying the allegations of the complaint was filed by the defendant, and thereafter, with the permission of the court, certain persons claiming an interest in

the

controversy, by reason of having become

bona fide

purchasers for value of certain bonds that bad been issued by the defendant, filed complaints in intervention, wherein the allegations of the complaint were denied and certain defenses to the action of the plaintiff were also set forth. The cause was tried by the court, and upon its findings of fact judgment was rendered in accordance with the prayer of the complaint. A motion for a new trial was made' on behalf of the interveners, and denied by the court. From this order, and also from the judgment, the interveners have appealed. No motion for a new trial or appeal was made or taken by the defendant.

1. The motion of the respondent to dismiss the appeal upon ■the ground that there is no judgment against the appellants and that the district has taken no appeal, must be overruled. In the order of the superior court granting leave to intervene, it was determined that the interveners had an interest in the matter in litigation, and in the success of the defendants and .against the plaintiff, and under section 387 of the Code of Civil Procedure, after the intervention had taken place they became parties to the action, “uniting with the defendant in resisting the claims of the plaintiff,” and as such parties they

[291]

are entitled to avail themselves of all the procedure and remedies to which the defendant would be entitled for ■ the purpose of defeating the action, or resisting the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant cannot, by its inaction, deprive them of the right to review the action of the superior court in rendering judgment against their claim or against the defendant.