Reclamation District—Quo Wabranto — Pleading—Usurpation.—In a proceeding in quo warranto prosecuted by the state to exclude a reclamation district, and the persons claiming to constitute it, from all corporate rights, it is sufficient to .allege the ultimate fact that the defendants are exercising the franchise without authority of law, and the complaint is not defective in- not alleging specifically the acts constituting the usurpation.

Id.—Validity of Incorporation—Estoppel of State.—The state is not estopped from questioning the validity of the incorporation of a reclamation district, by reason of inaction upon its part for 'many years, during which defendants have expended large sums of money in reclaiming the land embraced therein, and have enjoyed the fruits of their labors.

Id.—Petition for Organization—Weekly Publication in Daily Paper.— Under section 30 of the act providing for the organization of reclamation districts (Stats. 1867-68, p. 607), requiring the petition therefor to be published “for four weeks next preceding the hearing thereof in some newspaper published™ the county,” a publication thereof once each week in a daily newspaper published in the county, for four weeks next preceding the hearing, is a sufficient compliance with the law.

Id.—Validity of Petition—Signatures by Agents.—A petition for the organization of a reclamation district is not void upon its face, merely because the names of some of the owners of land were attached to to it by other parties. If the names were signed by proper authority, the signatures were those of the owners.

Id.—Jurisdiction of Supervisors—Approval of Petition—Adjudication. The board of supervisors had power to decide upon the genuineness of the signatures to the petition for the organization of the reclamation district; and the approval of the petition by the board was conclusive adjudication of that fact.