Reclamation District No. 730 v. Snowball

California Supreme Court Sep 8, 1911 No. Sac. No. 1831.Published

Before: Beatty, Henshaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the assessment was valid, finding that the jurat on the publication affidavit was sufficient and that private agreements between landowners regarding levee construction could not be asserted as a defense in an action to collect a district assessment.

Issues

Whether a jurat signed by a county clerk acting as ex-officio clerk of the superior court is sufficient to establish jurisdiction for the organization of a reclamation district.
Whether a private contract between landowners to construct levees can be asserted as a defense in an action to enforce a reclamation district assessment.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In any one of these three capacities he was empowered to administer an oath.”

“Whatever the property-owners did or did not do under the agreement could not bind the district nor operate to impair or curtail the rights and powers of the district as an agent and mandatory of the state.”

“An action to enforce the collection of an assessment is not one to which a defense such as this will lie.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Yolo County and from an order denying a new trial. E. E. Gaddis, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Opinion — Henshaw

[697]

HENSHAW, J.

This is an action to enforce the collection of an assessment upon the lands of defendants and appellants. The plaintiff is the same plaintiff and the assessment the same assessment considered in

Reclamation District No. 730

Hershey et al.,

(Sac. No. 1832),

ante,

p. 692, [117 Pac. 904]. Most of the propositions here advanced are disposed of by what has been said in the opinion in that case. In this instance, however, the appeal is from the judgment as well as from the order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial.

The answer in this case denied for lack of “knowledge, information or belief,” the allegations touching the due organization of the district. Those denials were stricken out by the trial court as being sham and frivolous, since the organization was a matter of record and it was not proper for the defendant to deny record matter for lack of information. But waiving the question of the soundness of this ruling; waiving also the question as to whether the due organization of such a district can be attacked in a proceeding such as this, and coming to the consideration of the sole ground of attack which is here presented, the ground itself is untenable and the contention without merit. The affidavit of the publication of the petition (Pol. Code, secs. 3446, 3447) was admittedly in due form. The jurat declared that it was sworn to before “G. L. Duncan, clerk.” Attached thereto was the seal of the superior court of Yolo County. It is contended that this jurat was insufficient and therefore the board of supervisors did not acquire jurisdiction. G. L. Duncan was county clerk of the county of Yolo. As such clerk he was

ex-ófficio

clerk of the superior court and

ex-officio

clerk of the board of supervisors. In any one of these three capacities he was empowered to administer an oath. In which capacity he did in fact administer it is immaterial but it would seem from the seal attached to have been administered by him as clerk of the superior court. Even the absence of any seal would have amounted to a mere irregularity not affecting the validity of the oath,

Reclamation District No. 730 v. Snowball

AI Brief

Synopsis

Opinion — Henshaw

HENSHAW, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

Dissent — Beatty

BEATTY, C. J.

AI Brief