People v. La Rue

8 P. 84, 67 Cal. 526, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 690
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 28, 1885
DocketNo. 9801
StatusPublished
Cited by38 cases

This text of 8 P. 84 (People v. La Rue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. La Rue, 8 P. 84, 67 Cal. 526, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 690 (Cal. 1885).

Opinion

Searls, C.

This is an action in the nature of quo ivarranto, to determine whether there is any such corporation as Reclamation-District Ho. 407, and whether the defendants Hugh M. La Rue, Samuel Lavenson, and William Wilcox are trustees thereof.

The defendants set up in their answer that two reclamation districts existed under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, known and designated respectively as districts Ho. 89 and Ho. 215, and that Swamp Land Reclamation District Ho. 407 was formed under section 8489 of the Political Code [527]*527of the State of California by the reorganization and consolidation of said districts 89 and 215.

The cause was tried by the court without a jury, and defendants had judgment, from which and from an order denying a motion for a new trial this appeal is prosecuted by the plaintiff.

It was admitted at the trial that defendants were elected trustees of Swamp Land District No. 407, pursuant to an order of the board of supervisors, and after due notice thereof.

The whole controversy is involved in appellant’s third assignment of error, which is as follows:—

“The evidence is insufficient to justify the judgment in favor of defendants, because the evidence clearly shows that, district No. 407 was formed out of districts No. 89 and No. 215, and that said' districts No. 89 and No. 215 were never legally, or at all, organized, and that consequently district No. 407 was never legally, or at all, organized, and that consequently defendants were claiming to hold an office and to exercise a franchise that never existed.”

We think the evidence sustains the assertion that districts No. 89 and No. 215 had gone through the form of organizing, and had for some years acted as swamp land districts—that they were de facto corporations, and it seems to be tacitly conceded, though not directly admitted, that there were irregularities in their proceedings which would have been fatal to their existence in a direct attack on the part of the people.

We shall, consequently, for the purposes of the decision, assume that districts No. 89 and No. 215 were de fado corporations, and were not corporations de jure.

Section 3489 of the Political Code provides that “ swamp land, levee, and reclamation districts formed, organized, or erected into districts under special or general laws heretofore or now in force may reorganize and consolidate in the manner following : Whenever the owners of a majority of acres of land in each of two or more swamp land, levee, or reclamation districts shall desire to consolidate and reorganize, they may do so by filing a notice with the county recorder of the county in which the greatest portion of the land of the districts is situated, setting forth that they desire to consolidate and reorganize. The notice must give the exterior boundaries of the said district, the name [528]*528and. number of each of them, the number of acres of land that each contains, and must be signed by the persons owning the majority of acres of land in each district, and shall designate the number of acres owned by each signer in the district in which the same is situated.”

The section proceeds further to make it the duty of the county recorder to record the notice, to make and forward to the State land register a certified copy thereof; whereupon the latter must designate a number for the reorganized district the same as provided for in original organizations, and thereafter the district so organized shall be under the operation and be governed by the general laws, and all proceedings thereafter shall be the same as in organizing districts upon original petition.

The proceedings for the organization of the present district under section 3489 of the Political Code seems to have been substantially in accordance with the requirements of that section, and of the general statutes relating to and governing the same, and unless in this proceeding the regularity of the organization of the original districts Ho. 89 and Ho. 215 may be inquired into, the judgment of the court below should be affirmed.

It has been determined by this court that a reclamation district is a public corporation for municipal purposes. (Dean v. Davis, 51 Cal. 409.)

Reclamation District Ho. 407 is either a corporation, or it is not. The whole theory of this action proceeds upon the ground that districts Ho. 89 and Ho. 215, not having been organized as by law provided, had no legal entity, and could not therefore servo as a basis upon which to organize by consolidation a new district, and as a consequence that Ho. 407 has in the eye of the law no existence.

If it is, and at the time this action was brought, was a corporation, the action must fail, for its sole object is to determine judicially that there was no such district, and no such offices as those claimed by defendants.

The question of the reclamation of the swamp and overflowed lands of the State, is one that has received much attention at the hands of the legislature, numerous statutes bearing upon the subject, and having the same general object in view, had prior to 1878 received the sanction of the law-making power.

[529]*529Under these statutes a large number of swamp land districts had been organized, governed by separate and sometimes opposite laws.

The object in every case was, no doubt, to reach the same general result, and to .vary the means so as to meet the requirements of different cases and classes of cases. The result of this varied legislation, however, was to so far complicate the system that no general and comprehensive rule could be formulated and adopted, and a multitude of swamp land districts existed, each governed by its own special law.

To bring all these swamp land districts within the operation of general laws seems to have been one of the objects of the amendment of 1878, embodied in section 3489 of the Political Code.

Under that section new districts are created.

It provides for the filing of a notice, and prescribes the contents of such notice and the mode or number of persons by whom it must be signed.

Upon recording this notice and furnishing a certified copy to the State land register, that officer is required to designate a number for the organized district, after which it shall be under the operation of and governed by the general reclamation laws of the State, and all proceedings thereafter shall be the same as though such district was organized upon an original petition.

The statute does not propose any method, or delegate to any officer, authority to inquire into the regularity of the proceedings by which the original districts were formed.

Indeed it does little more than to adopt the territorial limits of the old districts as the boundaries of the new.

In reason we can see no objection to the formation of a valid corporation under section 3489, by consolidating two or more districts existing as such in fact, and entitled to recognition as such by all the world, except the State of California, and by the State even, except in direct proceedings against it, to determine its right to exercise corporate powers.

The object of the law is to promote the formation of corporations for the reclamation of waste lands.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Federal Chemical Co. v. Paddock
94 S.W.2d 645 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1936)
Roberts v. Prisk
284 P. 984 (California Court of Appeal, 1930)
Drum v. University Place Water District
258 P. 505 (Washington Supreme Court, 1927)
Douthit v. Baldwin
1926 OK 211 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1926)
Cook v. Town of Putnam
283 S.W. 649 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Sherwood v. Worth County Drainage District Number One
250 S.W. 605 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1923)
Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. John Day Irrigation District
211 P. 781 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1923)
Fisher v. Pioneer Construction Co.
62 Colo. 538 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1917)
Brown Bros. v. Columbia Irrigation District
82 Wash. 274 (Washington Supreme Court, 1914)
Roaring Springs Townsite Co. v. Paducah Telephone Co.
164 S.W. 50 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Newby & White v. Drainage District
79 S.E. 266 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1913)
Parker v. Harris County Drainage Dist. No. 2
148 S.W. 351 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1912)
Mitchell v. Carter
1912 OK 204 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Creditors' Union v. Lundy
117 P. 624 (California Court of Appeal, 1911)
Sioux Falls Light & Power Co. v. Coughran
131 N.W. 504 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1911)
Reclamation District No. 765 v. McPhee
109 P. 1106 (California Court of Appeal, 1910)
Reclamation District No. 70 v. Sherman
105 P. 277 (California Court of Appeal, 1909)
People Ex Rel. Post v. San Joaquin Valley Agric. Ass'n
91 P. 746 (California Supreme Court, 1907)
Whipple v. Tuxworth
99 S.W. 86 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 P. 84, 67 Cal. 526, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-la-rue-cal-1885.