Selfridge

All that is required is a substantial compliance with the statute. (People v. 8. & V. P. P. Co. 45 Cal. 313 ; Spring Valley W. TV. v. San Francisco, 22 Cal. 440 .)

The certificate of the Secretary of State (fol. 5) is conclusive upon the plaintiff. Until that has been vacated by proper proceedings the defendants cannot be charged with any usurpation of a “ franchise.”

A mere “ claim ” to have a “ franchise,” or an “ intention ” to exercise corporate powers, will not warrant the proceedings taken in this case. There must be a “ user ” and exercise of the franchise, or some. “ act”, by the defendants which is an infringement upon the rights of the public. (Angelí & Ames, sec. 744; People v. Thompson, 16 Wend. 655 ; King v. TVhitwell, 5 Term Hep. 85; Green v. Pepper, 7 Ad. & E. 745.)

Cowdery & Preston, for Bespondents.

In order to secure title to a corporate franchise under a general law, each and every condition prescribed by the Legislature must be substantially complied with; and the non-compliance *333 with any condition, no matter what it may he, will prevent the title from resting as against the State. (Harris v. Me Gregor, 20 Cal. 127 ; Moh. Hill Co. v. Woodbury, 14 Cal.…