Woods

This is an appeal from a decree dismissing a complaint in equity on final hearing. The suit involved the validity of certain bonds of an irrigation district organized under the laws of the state of California. The consideration paid for the bonds held by the appellant is left in much doubt. It was, at least in part, certain property and property rights conveyed to the district; but we think it is a fair inference from all the testimony that the bonds were in faet issued and delivered to cover all promotion expenses of every kind, running through *297 a period of some years prior to the organization of the district.

Section .15 of the irrigation district law (St. 1897, p. 258, as amended by St. 1911, p. 511), in force when the bonds wore voted and when tho property was conveyed to the district, provided that no purchase or lease of any waters, or water rights, or canals, or reservoirs, or reservoir sites, or irrigation works, or other property of any nature or kind, or stock in any other corporation, for any price, aggregate rental, or consideration, in excess of $10,000, should Ibe final or binding on the district, nor should the purchase price, rental, or consideration, or any…