In re Organization & of the Bonds of the Central Irrigation District

concurring. I concur in the reversal of the judgment and order upon the ground that in my opinion owners of town lots are not qualified signers of the petition.

This proceeding was instituted by the hoard of directors of the Central Irrigation District, under the provisions of an act of the legislature, commonly and for convenience designated the “Confirmation Act” (Stats. 1889, p. 212).

The petitioners, as the act provides they may do, set forth: 1. The proceedings leading to, and terminating in, the organization of the' irrigation district; and, 2. The proceedings attending the issue and sale of bonds of the district, and asked that these proceedings be reviewed and declared valid and legal.

Certain persons interested in the district, and owning lands therein, appeared, and, by answer, contested the validity of the proceedings for the organization of the district, as well as the proceedings for the issue and sale of bonds. The findings of the court were in favor of the regularity and legality of all these steps and processes, and the judgment of the court followed accordingly. From that judgment, and from the order denying a new trial, disaffected property owners within the district prosecute these appeals.

One of the property owners, L. P. Drexler, appeared, and interposed to the inquiry as to the legality of the organization of the…

concurring. I concur in the judgment and in the views expressed by Mr. Justice Henshaw, except only upon the question as to the sufficiency *401 of the notice given of the time of presentation to the board of supervisors of the petition for the formation of the district.

Upon that question I express no opinion.

Rehearing denied.

Beatty, C. J., dissented from the order denying a rehearing.