Bradley v. Fallbrook Irr. Dist.
Decision Date | 22 July 1895 |
Docket Number | 553. |
Citation | 68 F. 948 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
Parties | BRADLEY et al. v. FALLBROOK IRRIGATION DIST. et al. |
Lee & Scott and Chapman & Hendrick, for complainants.
Aitken & Smith, for defendants.
This is a suit in equity, by which it is sought to have enjoined the execution of a deed for certain land of the complainant Maria King Bradley under a sale made by the collector of the defendant irrigation district, to satisfy a delinquent assessment against the property levied under and by virtue of the provisions of an act of the legislature of the state of California, and its amendments, known as the 'Wright Act' (St. 1887, p. 29; St. 1889. pp. 15-18, 212, 213; St 1891, pp. 53, 142, 145, 147, 244), providing for the organization and existence of irrigation districts, and to obtain a decree adjudging the proceedings under that legislation, in so far as concerns the property of the complainant Maria King Bradley, void and of no effect. The regularity of the proceedings under the act is not questioned, and as the supreme court of the state has sustained its validity in a number of cases hereinafter referred to, and as the statute itself makes the deed executed pursuant to its provisions (except as against actual fraud) conclusive evidence of the regularity of all the proceedings from the assessment to the execution of the deed and declares that it conveys to the grantee the absolute title to the lands described therein free of all incumbrances except when the land is owned by the United States or this state, in which case it is prima facie evidence of the right of possession, it cannot admit of doubt that a bill in equity is the proper mode of obtaining relief, if there is any to which the complainants are entitled. Gage v. Kaufman, 133 U.S. 473, 10 Sup.Ct. 406. The principal ground of the suit is the alleged unconstitutionality of the Wright act, it being contended by the complainants that it not only conflicts with certain provisions of the constitution of the state of California, but also violates that provision of the constitution of the United States which declares that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law, and, moreover, provides for the taking of private property for private use.
The act of California under which the proceedings complained of were had provides, in its first section, as amended by the act approved March 20, 1891 (St. 1891, p. 142), that whenever 50 or a majority of the holders of title or evidence of title to lands susceptible of one mode of irrigation, from a common source and by the same system of works, desire to provide for the irrigation of the same, they may propose the organization of a district under the provisions of the act, and, when so organized, such district shall have the powers conferred or that may thereafter be conferred by law upon such irrigation districts. The equalized county assessment roll next preceding the presentation of the petition for the organization of an irrigation district, under the provisions of the act, it is declared, shall be sufficient evidence of title for the purposes of the act. Its second section, as amended by the act of March 20, 1891, is as follows:
The third section provides how such election shall be conducted and for the canvass of the vote, and that if, upon such canvass, it appear that at least two-thirds of all the votes cast are 'Irrigation District-- Yes,' the board of supervisors shall, by an order entered on its minutes declare such territory duly organized as an irrigation district under the name and style theretofore designated, and shall declare the persons receiving respectively the highest number of votes for the several offices, to be duly elected thereto, and shall cause a certified copy of such order to be immediately filed for record in the office of the county recorder of each county in which any portion of such land is situated, and shall also immediately forward a copy thereof to the clerk of the board of supervisors of each of the counties in which any portion of the district may lie, and, from and after the date of such filing, the organization of such district shall be complete, and the officers thereof shall be entitled to enter immediately upon the duties of their respective offices upon qualifying according to law, and shall hold such offices respectively until their successors are elected and qualified. The third section of the act, as amended by that of March 20, l891, also provides that 'no action shall be commenced or maintained or defense made affecting the validity of the organization, unless the same shall have been commenced or made within two years from the making and entering of said order' of the board of supervisors declaring the territory duly organized as an irrigation district. Section 4 et seq. provides for subsequent elections, at which an assessor, a collector, a treasurer, and a board of directors for the district shall be elected. Section 11, as amended March 20, 1891, provides for the organization of the board of directors after their election; and by section 12, as so amended, it is provided that the board shall, among other things, have the right to enter upon any of the land to make surveys, and may locate the necessary irrigation works and the line for any canal or canals, and the necessary branches for the same, on any of the lands which may be deemed best for such location, and shall also have the right to acquire, either by purchase, condemnation, or other legal means, lands, waters, water rights, and other property necessary for the construction, use, supply, maintenance, repair, and improvements of said...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morrison v. Morey
... ... 203; People ex rel. v. Nibbe, ... 37 N.E. 217; Johnson v. San. Dist., 45 N.E. 213; ... Nugent v. Board of Levee Com., 58 Miss. 197. It is ... Moulton v. Parks, 64 Cal. 166; Bradley v ... Fallbrook Irrigation District, 68 F. 948. Third. In that ... it ... ...
-
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. State ex rel. City of Omaha
...Dwiggins, 83 Ind. 473; State v. Mayor of City of Newark, 25 N.J.L. 399; City of St. Louis v. Hill, 22 S.W. 861 [Mo.]; Bradley v. Fallbrook Irrigation District, 68 F. 948; McMillen v. Anderson, 95 U.S. 37; Davidson v. of Administrators of New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97.) Notice must be given to per......
-
Board of Directors of Alfalfa Irrigation District v. Collins
...v. St. Clair & Monroe Levee & Drainage Co., 51 Ill. 130; Cypress Pond Draining Co. v. Hooper, 2 Met. [Ky.], 350; Bradley v. Fallbrook Irrigation District, 68 F. 948; Clother v. Maher, 15 Neb. 6; Larson v. Dickey, Neb. 463. G. W. Shields, contra, cited: Olmstead v. Camp, 33 Conn. 532; Todd v......
-
Sterritt v. Young
... ... 213; ... Board v. Aldredge, 73 P. 1104; Aldredge v. Sch ... Dist., 65 P. 796.) ... All the ... requisites of the petition must ... Osborn, 3 Ore ... 318; Saddler v. Langham, 34 Ala. 311; Bradley v ... Fall Brook Irr. Dist., 68 F. 948; Costa v. Tie Water ... Co., ... (7 ... Ency. Pl. & Pr., 545; Fallbrook Irr. Dist. v ... Bradley, 164 U.S. 392.) The decided weight of ... ...