Weber v. Jordan Valley Irr. Dist.

• Decision Date: 27 November 1923
• Citation: 109 Or. 426,220 P. 146
• Parties: WEBER v. JORDAN VALLEY IRR. DIST. ET AL.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

220 P. 146

109 Or. 426

WEBER v. JORDAN VALLEY IRR. DIST. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Oregon

November 27, 1923

Appeal from Circuit Court, Malheur County; Dalton Biggs, Judge.

Suit by William Weber, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against the Jordan Valley Irrigation District and W. S. Bruce, Layton Stocking, and Charles E. Lanning as directors of the district. From an order sustaining demurrer to complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Crandall & Crandall, of Vale, and Iven L. Hiler, of Boise, Idaho, for appellant.

Teal, Winfree, Johnson & McCulloch, of Portland, and J. B. Eldridge, of Boise, Idaho, for respondents.

RAND J.

The plaintiff, a landowner within the district, on October 13 1923, commenced this suit against the Jordan Valley irrigation district and its board of directors, seeking to enjoin the directors of the district from selling or offering for sale the bonds of said district.

By his complaint he alleges, in substance, that the district is not a legally organized district nor authorized to issue bonds for the reason that the notice stating the time of the meeting of the county court, at which the petition proposing the organization of the district would be presented to the county court for its determination, was not given by the petitioners themselves as required by section 7305, Or. L but was given by the county clerk. From the complaint it appears that the notice in question was published over the name of the county clerk and that a copy of the petition together with the signatures of the signers thereto, was a part of said publication.

In the case of In re Harper Irr. Dist. (Or.) 216 P. 1020, citing Greig v. Owyhee Irr. Dist., 102 Or. 265, 202 P. 222, and In re Central Irr. Dist., 117 Cal. 382, 49 P. 354, it was held that this notice must be given by the petitioners themselves, and that, when given by the clerk and not by the petitioners, the notice is insufficient.

But it appears from the allegations of the complaint that on September 7, 1922, in conformity with the provisions of section 7358, Or. L., the board of directors of said district filed a sufficient petition in the circuit court of Malheur county, praying that an examination be made of the proceedings under which the district had been organized and of the orders of the county court in establishing the district, and of the proceedings of the district in authorizing the issuance and sale of its bonds, and that in said suit, and on the 23d day of October, 1922, a decree was entered after notice of that proceeding had been duly and regularly published and given in the manner provided by law, adjudicating and determining that all of said proceedings were valid and legal in all respects, and that said district had been established according to law and that said district was entitled to issue and sell said bonds. The complaint also alleges that neither the plaintiff nor any one else appeared in said suit or objected to the confirmation of said proceedings or to the issuance and sale by the district of its said bonds, and that the regularity and legality of the very matters and things referred to by the plaintiff in his complaint herein were, by said decree, confirmed.

A general demurrer to plaintiff's complaint was...