Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United! States for the Southern Division of the Southern District of California.

Suit in equity by Amelia S. Quinton, George H. Quinton, John G. Swanson, A. McClure, C. Carter, H. A. Smith, Joseph Jourdan, T. H. Sharpkss, J. G. Tigner, J. H. Woodward, Carl Anderson, W. A. Morrison, A. F. Hardy, S. R. Waller, A. W. Hook, W. R. Morrison, A. F. Thompson, George C. Woodward, W. D. Woodward, C. W. Woodward, M. A. Wolcott, I. A. Holman, and Isaac Hall against the Equitable Investment Company, R. H. Thompson, and Conrad Escher and Louis Rahn, copartners doing business as Escher & Rahn. Decree for defendants, and complainants appeal.

The appellees herein had brought actions in the court below to recover judgments on certain bonds purporting to have been issued by the Perris irrigation district of San Bernardino county, state of California; the bonds being of a series of bonds amounting in the aggregate to $442,000, issued by the board of directors of said irrigation district pursuant to a vote of the electors of the district at an election held on November 1, 1890, and containing the recital that they were issued by authority of and pursuant to, and after full compliance with, all the requirements of the act of the Legislature of the state of California, entitled “An act to provide for tlie organization and government of irrigation districts and to provide for tlie acquisition of water and other property and for the distribution of water thereby for irrigation purposes.’’ approved March 7, 1887, and generally known as the Wright Act. The appellants herein obtained leave to intervene in said actions at law, and in their complaint in intervention alleged that there was not then, nor ever was, any Perris irrigation district organized under the Wright Act; that the persons served with summons in said actions at law were not the officers of said alleged district; that there were proceedings had protending to organize said district and elect officers therefor, hut that the board of supervisors of the county of San Bernardino, before whom said proceedings were had, acted without jurisdiction, and the proceedings for the organization of the district were absoluiely void, and said district never legally executed or issued the bonds; that certain persons assumed and claimed the right to act as the officers of said alleged district, hut they acted without legal power or authority, and without any legal election or appointment to such offices; that they have long since abandoned said offices and moved out of the district; that some of the persons so served with summons in said actions are now out of the state of California and have no interest in said alleged district and no power or authority to represent the same or the property owners therein. And the interveners alleged that if they were not permitted to intervene and protect their rights, judgment would be taken against the said alleged district, and the property of the interveners would be thereby incumbered and liable 1o taxation to meet and pay the same.

The defendants to the hill, who were the plaintiffs in the law action, demurred to the complaint in intervention, the demurrer was sustained, and the complaint; was struck from the files. Thereupon the appellants filed the bill in equity, which is under review on the present appeal, to enjoin the prosecution of tlie actions at law on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction of the subject-matter thereof, or of the alleged Perris irrigation district, and alleging therein the facts that had been set up in their complaint in intervention, and further averred that the district disposed of said bonds contrary to law, that the landowners never received any benefit therefrom, that the plaintiffs in said actions who are made the defendants to tlie bill knew that they were void at the time of their purchase, and the complainants ask by ■way of discovery that the defendants be required to answer when and from whom the bonds were acquired with the price paid for each thereof, and the numbers of each of the bonds claimed by each of the defendants. The defendants, the appellees herein, thereupon demurred to the bill for want of equity, for nmltifariousness, for the reason that the complainants had a full, adequate, and complete remedy at law, and that the court had no jurisdiction. The demurrer was sustained, and, the complainants declining to amend, a decree was entered dismissing the bill. From that decree the present appeal is taken.