Miller v. Perris Irr. Dist.
Decision Date | 15 January 1900 |
Docket Number | 752. |
Citation | 99 F. 143 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
Parties | MILLER v. PERRIS IRR. DIST. et al. |
Works & Lee, for complainant.
C. C Wright, for defendants.
Complainant an owner of lands in the irrigation district mentioned, sues for the cancellation of bonds issued by said district, and to enjoin assessments against his lands for the payment of said bonds. The case has already been before me twice,-- the first time on demurrer and plea to the original bill (Miller v. Irrigation Dist. (C.C.) 85 F. 693), and the second time on demurrer and exceptions to the amended bill (Id., 92 F. 263). At the latter hearing a formal ruling on the exceptions was inadvertently omitted, and an order allowing them will now be entered. The facts and statutory provisions pertinent to the present submission, except so far as they are herein stated, will be found in the two cases above cited.
After the demurrer to the amended bill was overruled, defendants pleaded thereto:
First. That they are innocent purchasers of the bonds held by them, and that said bonds contain a recital in the words and figures following to wit:
Second. That appropriate proceedings were had, and final decree entered therein by the superior court of San Diego county, confirming the organization of said district and issuance of said bonds.
After defendants had interposed these pleas, complainant, by leave of the court, filed a supplemental bill alleging, in substance, that the people of the state of California had brought an action in the nature of quo warranto in the superior court of Riverside county, and that said court in said action rendered a judgment that said irrigation district was and is wholly void, and that said district was unlawfully usurping the rights and powers of, and claiming to be, a lawfully organized district under the laws of this state. To this supplemental bill defendants have demurred on the ground that the matters therein pleaded do not entitle the complainant to equitable relief, and have also excepted to said bill for impertinence, and have also interposed a plea that an appeal has been taken from the decree of the superior court of Riverside county, and that said appeal is pending and undetermined. Said pleas to the amended bill, and demurrer and exceptions and plea to the supplemental bill, having been argued at the same time, are included in the pending submission, and will be considered in the order in which I have stated them:
1. The supreme court of the United States has declared, through a long and unbroken line of decisions, that where a municipality has power, under certain circumstances, to issue, and does issue, bonds which recite that all requirements of the law have been complied with, and the officers issuing the bonds are charged with the duty of ascertaining and determining the facts authorizing their issuance, the municipality will not, as against bona fide holders, be heard to deny the facts so certified on the fact of the bonds. Mercer Co. v. Hackett, 1 Wall. 83, 17 L.Ed. 548; Town of Coloma v. Eaves, 92 U.S. 484, 23 L.Ed. 479; Commissioners v. Bolles, 94 U.S. 104, 24 L.Ed. 46; Commissioners v. January, 94 U.S. 202, 24 L.Ed. 110; San Antonio v. Mehaffy, 96 U.S. 312, 24 L.Ed. 816; Warren Co. v. Marcy, 97 U.S. 96, 24 L.Ed. 977; Sherman Co. v. Simons, 109 U.S. 735, 3 Sup.Ct. 502, 27 L.Ed. 1093; City of Evansville v. Dennett, 161 U.S. 434, 16 Sup.Ct. 613, 40 L.Ed. 760; Commissioners v. Rollins, 173 U.S. 255, 19 Sup.Ct. 390, 43 L.Ed. 689; Grattan Tp. v. Chilton (C.C.A.) 97 F. 145.
The expression 'want of power' has been usefully paraphrased as follows:
'Simonton, Mun. Bonds, Sec. 192.
In Mercer Co. v. Hackett, supra, the court says:
In San Antonio v. Mehaffy, supra, the court says:
In the case last quoted from the bonds had the following recital:
'City Hall, City of San Antonio, March 1, 1852.'
And the court declared the effect of the recital thus:
In Warren Co. v. Marcy, supra, the court says:
In Grattan Tp. v. Chilton, supra, the court says:
'If under any circumstances, the board would have had authority to issue them, and the bonds would have been valid, innocent purchasers had the right to presume that those circumstances existed when they were issued, and the township was estopped to deny their existence after such purchasers had bought them in reliance upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kardo Co. v. Adams
... ... 646, 656, 17 ... Sup.Ct. 957, 42 L.Ed. 310; Miller v. Perris Irrigation ... Dist., 85 F. 693, 698 (C.C.); Id., 99 F. 143, 50 ... (C.C.); Herring v. Modesto Irr. Dist., 95 F. 705, ... 717, et seq. (C.C.); Telegraph Co. v. Railroad ... ...
-
Mitchell v. Carter
...R. R. (C. C.) 82 F. 642; Miller v. Irrigation Dist. (C. C.) 85 F. 693; Miller v. Irrigation Dist. (C. C.) 92 F. 263; Miller v. Irrigation Dist. (C. C.) 99 F. 143; Speer v. Board of Commissioners, 88 F. 749, 32 C. C. A. 101; Leach v. People, 122 Ill. 427, 12 N.E. 726; Lyons v. Woods, 153 U.S......
-
Shelton v. Gas Securities Co.
... ... and devolved by statute, but may result from implication ... Miller v. Perris Irrigation District (C.C.) 99 F ... 143; Town of Coloma v ... ...
-
Gray v. School Dist. No. 73 of Clay County
... ... conducting schools within the district as a de jure ... corporation. [Miller v. Perris Irr. Dist., 99 F ... 143; 14 C. J., p. 208.] ... The ... ...