Hagar v. Supervisors

By the COURT. — -It is sought in this case to review the action of the board of supervisors of Yolo county in its proceedings to establish “Reclamation District No. 108,” organized for the purpose of reclaiming a large body of swamp and overflowed land situate in Yolo and Colusa counties. The only office of the writ of certiorari in this state is to ascertain and determine whether the inferior tribunal to which it is directed has exceeded its jurisdiction in the proceeding sought [771]to be reviewed. The only question, therefore, which is before us in this case is, whether the board of supervisors has regularly pursued its authority and kept within its jurisdiction in the proceedings under review.

The act of March 28, 1868 (Stats. 1867-68, p. 514), prescribes minutely the steps to be pursued in the organization of swamp land reclamation districts. Section 30 provides that: “Whenever the holders of certificates of purchase, patents or other evidence of title representing one-half or more of any body of swamp and overflowed, salt marsh or tide lands, susceptible of one mode of reclamation, desire to reclaim the same, they shall present to the board of supervisors of the county in which the said lands or the greater portion thereof are situated, at a regular meeting of said board, a petition setting forth that they desire to adopt measures to reclaim the same, the description of the lands they propose to reclaim, by township, range, section and subdivision of section; the quantity sold and the quantity remaining unsold, the number of acres in the whole district and the number of acres in each tract sold, with the name (if known) of the owner thereof.”

It will be observed that the petition is required to set forth “the quantity sold and the quantity remaining unsold, the number of acres in the whole district and the number of acres in each tract sold, with the name (if known) of the owner thereof.” The petition in this case is wholly silent as to “the quantity sold and the quantity remaining unsold” within the proposed district. There is, it is true, annexed to the petition a schedule which is referred to as containing a description of the land sought to be reclaimed, “the several tracts of land in said district, the number of acres in each tract, and the names of the owners thereof so far as known. ’ ’ In the schedule the several tracts are described by township, range, section and subdivisions of sections, as required by the statute, and opposite to a large number of the tracts are set down the names of the owners severally, but opposite to many other tracts is the word “unknown,” to indicate that the owner is unknown!