Petitioners seek by writ of mandate to compel respondent Director of Agriculture of California to forthwith rescind and revoke an order made by him denying milk distributors’ licenses to them, and also to compel said director to issue to each of petitioners such licenses for the year 1941. An alternative writ was issued by this .court, and a demurrer to said petition was filed by the Attorney General on behalf of respondents. All parties agree that the petition sets forth all necessary facts, and that decision of this court upon the demurrer will dispose of the entire litigation.

Under the provisions of section 737.11 of the Agricultural Code, orders to show cause were issued by the Director of Agriculture (hereinafter referred to as the “Director”), why petitioners’ licenses should not be revoked. A hearing was had, at which petitioners both appeared. Oral and documentary evidence was introduced, the transcript of said hearing being some two hundred pages in length. Upon the conclusion of said hearing, the order under attack here was made and entered.

The refusal to grant a license, or the suspension or revocation of a license may occur “when he (the ‘Director’) is satisfied that any applicant or licensee has violated any provision of this chapter (div. IV, chapter 10, Agricultural Code), or any provision of any stabilization and marketing plan formulated under the provisions of this chapter.” (Agricultural Code, section 737.11.) No exception is taken by petitioners to the facts found by the "Director.” Such findings are very exhaustive, and take up some eighteen pages of the petition. It may thus be properly concluded that the facts found were proven at said hearing. The order of revocation was not absolute, it being provided "that such application of said respondent, The Borden Company, may be renewed upon presentation of satisfactory evidence to the Director of Agriculture that said contract between it and United Milk Producers of California, dated August 1,' 1940, has been terminated and abandoned, and that said, The Borden Company has paid to the individual producer-members and to all other producers from whom it has received fluid milk since August 1, 1940, the full, applicable minimum prices therefor as established under the stabilization and marketing plan or plans effective during said time.”

As we view the several contentions of the parties, the real question is whether or not the "Director” has authority,• under the Milk Control Act (Agricultural Code of California, chapter 10, div. IV), to fix the minimum price which must be paid to its members by cooperative marketing associations organized under the provisions of division VI, chapter 4 of said code. The litigants appear to concede that if the Milk Control Act governs the situation, the order under attack must be sustained. It is admitted by petitioners that the individual producers who constitute United Milk Producers (hereinafter referred to as "United”), for a number of months prior to, and also at the time of said hearing, did not receive the minimum price for their milk prescribed and fixed by the "Director.” This was held by the "Director ’ ’ to constitute a violation of the law and regulations made pursuant thereto. The exact nature of the controversy, and the conflicting views in respect thereto, are thus aptly summarized by petitioners in their reply brief:

Petitioner, “United,” was organized May 16, 1933, under the said provisions of the Agricultural Code relating to nonprofit marketing associations (hereinafter designated as “Marketing Associations”), and passed by the legislature in 1933. Prom the date of its organization until August 1, 1940, “United” sold milk and cream, produced by its members, to various distributors. On August 1, 1940, “United” entered into a contract with “Borden,” whereby “Borden” agreed to process and distribute the fluid milk and cream produced by the members of “United,” and to return to “United” the proceeds of such operations less all expenses of operation and compensation to “Borden,” all as specified in the contract. The contract was to continue for two years and thereafter until terminated by either party upon six months’ notice. Ever since August 1, 1940, “United” and “Borden” have been, and they now are operating under the contract, and “Borden” has accounted to “United” for the proceeds of such operations, less the deductions provided in the contract.

In 1937, the Milk Control Act was passed. The first section thereof (Agricultural Code, section 735), is headed, “Legislative Declaration,” and it reads in part as follows:

Under subsequent provisions the “Director” is the administrative agent of the state, and he is given authority “To prescribe minimum prices to be paid by distributors in accordance with a stabilization and marketing plan for fluid milk. ...” (Sec. 735.4, subds. (b) and (4).) Section 735.3, subd. (f), provides:

It must be admitted that on the face of the law all persons are included within its scope. Section 735.3, subd. (k), reads:

In 23 Cal. Jur., page 725, see. 107, it' is stated:

The foregoing provisions indicate clearly that the legislature intended to include all associations within its scope. “United” was an association of producers. Further indication of such intent is found in the “legislative declaration” quoted above. Production of milk is declared to be a business affected with a public interest. Production, and distribution or sale of milk is declared to be an industry affecting health and public welfare. It is declared to be the public policy of the state to eliminate improper marketing and unfair and destructive trade practices. From the record before us it is apparent that a considerable portion of fluid milk was, and still is distributed directly by cooperatives to consumers. It is not reasonable to suppose that the legislature intended to make an exception to that sort of distribution, in a matter of such vital concern to the people of the state. If it intended to exclude cooperatives from the application of the law, it would have so declared.

Petitioners strongly rely upon section 1219 of the Agricultural Code, which is a portion of the law dealing with cooperative marketing associations. Said section reads as follows :

“The general corporation laws of this state and all powers and rights thereunder, shall apply, to the associations organized hereunder, except where such provisions are in conflict with or inconsistent with the express provisions of this chapter.”

They argue that the foregoing section establishes a rule of construction which must control here. It will be noted, however, that it has reference only to “the general corporation laws of this state.” The inconsistency and conflict here do not come from such laws, but from the Agricultural Code. There is therefore no rule of construction laid down for our guidance. Furthermore, it is the general rule that one legislature cannot enact irrepealable legislation or limit or restrict its own power or the power of its successors as to the repeal of statutes, and an act of one legislature is not binding upon, and does not tie the hands of future legislatures. (59 C. J., sec. 500, pages 899, 900). In Lewis’ Sutherland Statutory Construction, vol. 1, sec. 244, pages 456, 457, the rule is thus stated:

In the same volume, section 247, pages 461-464, it is said:

It must be apparent that the Cooperative Marketing Act, passed several years prior to the Milk Control Act, was inconsistent with the latter. Under the Marketing Act, the members were permitted to enter such marketing contracts as they wished, and to distribute the proceeds from the sale of milk among themselves, after deducting necessary expenses. On the other hand, the Milk Control Act gives authority to the “Director” to fix the minimum amount which a producer may receive for his milk. In this con nection the word “price” is used in the latter act. Considering the act in its entirety, we think the legislature did not use that word in a technical sense, and that it can be reasonably construed to include any return which is received by the producer from the distributor in the marketing of his product. It is therefore our conclusion that the Cooperative Marketing Act, in respect to the particulars mentioned, was impliedly repealed by the Milk Control Act, and that cooperative marketing associations are distributors for their members, and therefore subject to its operation and control.

Petitioners, in attempting to show lack of legislative intent to repeal, point out that a cooperative, from the very nature of its organization, cannot return the price fixed by the “Director” for milk, if its net returns are less than such price; that in cooperatives, the producer-member is the owner, and that he receives the profits from its marketing activities, and should therefore bear any loss. It must be assumed that the foregoing effect upon cooperative organizations must have been foreseen by the legislature, but that they considered that the health and general welfare of the people as a whole were paramount over such matters as the internal management of such associations, and their customary method of operation. The proof of a legislative intent to make the Milk Control Act all-inclusive is so apparent and strong that considerations of the foregoing nature must give way before it. By its very terms the act covered the distribution by “United.” The burden was therefore upon “United” to show that it was excepted from the enactment. This burden, as we have indicated, they have failed to sustain.

The authorities relied upon by petitioners are practically all directed toward the use and meaning of the word “price” in the Milk Control Act. It is contended that the use of that word indicates an intent to exclude cooperatives from its operation. They state:

They rely chiefly upon the case of Green v. Milk Control Commission (1940), 340 Pa. 1, 10 [16 Atl. (2d) 9, 10], where it is said:

As stated above, we are of the opinion that the word mentioned was used in a broader sense, and that, under the statute, any producer, irrespective of how he places his milk upon the market, must receive the minimum amount fixed by the “Director.” We accept the view of the dissenting opinion in the Green case, wherein the following language is used:

It is urged by petitioners that in the 1941 session of the legislature, proposed amendments to the Milk Control Act which would have included cooperatives within its scope, failed of passage. Thus, they say, the legislature must have intended, when the original act was passed, to exclude cooperatives from its scope. While this may be some evidence of legislative intent, it can be argued with equal force, that the omission to include the amendments was due to the fact that the legislature considered that the bill already included cooperatives, and that such amendments would be mere surplusage.

We have examined the other authorities cited by petitioners, but find nothing in them which is controlling. When it comes to a question of legislative intent, that matter must be decided from the peculiar facts and circumstances of each enactment.

The parties devote considerable time to the discussion of the question whether or not the contract between petitioners was one of agency or one under which “Borden” actually purchased the milk from “United.” We do not deem it necessary to discuss that phase of the matter. We have shown that “United” was subject to the provisions of the Milk Control Act. If “Borden” was its agent, as petitioners contend, they were in exactly the same predicament as their principal, and violated the Milk Control Act, as the member-producers of “United” did not receive the minimum amount fixed by the “Director” as the price of the milk.

In conclusion, we hold that there was ample evidence before the “Director” to sustain the order in question.

The demurrer to the petition is sustained and the writ denied, respondents to recover their costs.

Thompson, Acting P. J., concurred.

On December 5, 1941, the judgment was modified to read as above.