Garden Grove Drainage District v. All Persons

WILBUR, C. J.

The Garden Grove Drainage District was created in pursuance of the statutes of 1903. (Stats. 1903, p. 291.) An election was called for the purpose of creating the original bonded indebtedness authorized by section 27 of the act for the construction of the necessary improvements for which the district was organized. This section provides for the issuance of such bonds, and if necessary, for a supplemental issue of bonds to complete the work, when authorized by a vote of the electors of the district. With reference to the result of the election the statute provides:

“At such election the ballots shall contain the words ‘Bonds—Yes’ or ‘Bonds—No,’ or words equivalent thereto. If a majority of the votes cast are ‘Bonds—Yes,’ the board of directors shall cause bonds in said amount to be issued ; if a majority of the votes cast at any bond election are ‘Bonds—No,’ the result of such election shall be so declared and entered of record. Whenever thereafter, a petition of the character hereinbefore provided for in this section, is presented to the board, it shall so declare of record in its minutes, and shall thereupon submit such questions to said electors in the same manner and with like effect as at such previous election.”

The bonds were defeated at the election, and thereafter, without any petition therefor from electors or property holders, the directors called another election at which the bonds carried. This action was brought to establish the validity of the bonds about to be issued as a result of the second election. The trial court held that the election was valid.

[531]

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether or not the board of directors of the Garden Grove Drainage District was authorized by the statute to call such second election without a petition therefor.

This involves an interpretation of the last sentence of section 27 (Stats. 1903, p. 299), above quoted. The uncertainty as to its proper construction arises from the fact that section 27 does not thereinbefore provide for any petition whatever. The appellants contend that this whole sentence should be disregarded because void for uncertainty. The respondents suggest that the word “act” was intended instead of “section” and that the petition provided for in section 1 of the act is the one referred to in the concluding sentence of section 27. That petition is one signed by fifty or a majority of the holders of title within the proposed district and addressed to the board of supervisors asking for the calling of an election for the foundation of the district, etc.