This is an extremely confusing case in which appeal is taken from the judgment of the District Court of the District of Alaska, holding an administrative order null and void for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Territorial employee who purported to promulgate it. The court issued an injunction against enforcement. 120 F.Supp. 777 .

Fidalgo Island Packing Co., an employer of labor in the fishing industry of Alaska, and the Intervenor, one Clara Wilson, who claimed to be an employee in that industry, obtained a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the purported Amended Regulation No. 10. This regulation attempted to specify seasonable periods during which benefits would be payable to eligible beneficiaries for unemployment occurring within the benefit year, out of the Employment Security Fund established by the Territorial Legislature. This Amended Regulation was supposedly issued by and under the authority of the Employers Security Commission which was no longer in existence at the date of the issuance thereof.

The trial court found that the Packing Company and the Intervenor were entitled to represent the employers and em ployees in the industry and that the Packing Company and all others on whose behalf the action was brought had been injured and would be further irreparably injured if the purported regulation were enforced.

The trial court made, among others, the following findings of fact:

Upon these findings the court concluded that the purported amended Regulation was void and of no effect.

There is a presumption of lawful exercise of authority surrounding the acts of courts of general jurisdiction which is not enjoyed by administrative bodies. Jurisdiction of the subject matter and the persons must be pleaded and proved. No such showing was made here. The facts found by the trial court establish the position that no such showing was possible. Since the order was then void there was no necessity for exhaustion of supposed administrative remedies. All persons could with impunity disregard the order. Any person having a legal interest and suffering injury by threatened enforcement would be entitled to have judicial restraint placed upon those presuming to act upon it.

A regulation cannot be issued by a Commission which is no longer in existence. Any delegation of authority by the old Commission became null and void when the body itself was abolished.

We indicate no doubt of the validity of the result by recognizing that there are other legislative developments in this field since the cause was tried.

Affirmed.