Answer Will Not be Considered as Cross-Complaint when not stating facts entitling defendant to affirmative relief, p. 157.

Cited to same effect in Harrison v. McCormick, 69 Cal. 620, holding, further, character of pleading not affected by form of admission of service; Swasey v. Adair, 88 Cal. 182; note in 35 Am. St. Rep. 538, on point that answer in replevin did not constitute equitable defense.

Description of Deed held not to avoid it for uncertainty, p. 157.

Cited, ruling similarly on facts, in Schuyler v. Broughton, 76 Cal. 527, as to homestead declaration; Spaulding v. Bradley, 79 Cal. 453, as to alcalde grants.

Municipal Sale of Pueblo Land may be confirmed by subsequent curative act of legislature, p. 157.

Distinguished in Oakland v. Oakland etc. Co., 118 Cal. 194, as to Statutes of 1861, p. 334, and criticising such legislation.

52 Cal. 158-159. BOTSFORD v. HOWELL.

Application to Purchase Swamp Land is invalid if affidavit states facts in alternative form, p. 159.

Cited to same effect in Wilke v. Cohn, 54 Cal. 214, as to similar affidavit in attachment; McCoy v. Byrd, 65 Cal. 93, holding void an application under section 3443 of the Political Code for nonconformity therewith; Millidge v. Hyde, 67 Cal. 7, ruling similarly as to application under sections 3494 and 3500.

52 Cal. 159-164. MAHONEY v. SPRING VALLEY WATER WORKS. Eminent Domain.-Corporation commencing proceedings cannot transfer to another the right to continue them in name of original petitioner, p. 161.

Cited to same effect in Platt v. Pennsylvania Co., 43 Ohio St. 239, as to grant to another company of surplus appropriated beyond grantor's needs, and discussing rights of landowner thereon. Distingushed in California etc. Co. v. Hooper, 76 Cal. 408, allowing railroad proceeding to be continued in name of original petitioner after its consolidation with another; Santa Ana v. Harlin, 99 Cal. 540, discussing right of city to maintain proceedings for benefit of railroad. Cited, also, in note to Brunswick etc. Co. v. United etc. Co., 35 Am. St. Rep. 404, on transfer of corporate franchises.

Eminent Domain.-State delegates power of condemnation to agents p. 162.

Cited to same effect in Moran v. Ross, 79 Cal. 160, 161, discussing rail. road condemnation.

Eminent Domain-Water Company.-Corporation takes no part ir proceedings other than to initiate them, p. 162.

Cited to same effect in California etc. Co. v. Hooper, 76 Cal. 407, as to
condemnation for railroad.

Eminent Domain Proceedings can be commenced and continued only by
a corporation, p. 164.

Denied in Moran v. Ross, 79 Cal. 164, granting individual right to con-
demn for purposes of his railroad; and see California etc. Co. v. Hooper,
76 Cal. 408, as to dicta in main case.

Cited in People v. Hardy, 8 Utah, 73, construing local statutes as to
general elections.

Time of Holding Election must be specified in advance or election is
void, p. 169.

Cited to same effect in dissenting opinion in People v. Hoge, 55 Cal.
620, main opinion holding election not invalidated for defect in or want
of notice; Page v. Board, 85 Cal. 55, on point that election held without
authority of law gives no title to office, and applying rule to election
to incorporate town; People v. Budd, 114 Cal. 173, on point that no elec-
tion can be had (for lieutenant governor) where no provision made there-
for by law; State v. Echols, 41 Kan. 6, as to failure to post notice as
required by statute. Distinguished in Tillson v. Ford, 53 Cal. 706,
where election held under Consolidation Act and holding proclamation
sufficient; State v. Carroll, 17 R. I. 599, holding local statute directory
and election not void for informality as to notice.

52 Cal. 170-171. BANK OF SANTA ROSA v. CHALFANT.

Tax Paid Under Protest cannot be recovered back, though illegal,
where not then delinquent and officer threatening to make sale had no
such power, p. 171.

Distinguished in Helman v. Los Angeles, 147 Cal. 654, where city
charter provided that mode and manner of collecting city taxes should
be same as that for collection of state and county taxes, illegal city
taxes paid under protest are recoverable under Pol. Code, section 3819;
Gill v. Oakland, 124 Cal. 343, 344, noted under Bucknall v. Story, 46 Cal.
589; Maxwell v. San Luis Obispo, 71 Cal. 469, as to payment of illegal
license under threat of civil and criminal proceedings; Houston v. Feeser,
76 Tex. 368, holding license tax voluntarily paid under facts. Note
citations: Mayor v. Lefferman, 45 Am. Dec. 144, on general subject.

52 Cal. 171-189. PEOPLE v. HAGAR.

Action for Swamp Land Assessments may be brought in name of state,
p. 181.

Cited to same effect in Reclamation District v. Hagar, 66 Cal. 57, 58,

refusing, however, to vacate judgment otherwise regular because action brought directly in name of district; and on same point in Reclamation District v. Parvin, 67 Cal. 502.

Misjoinder of Causes of Action.-Action to recover assessment from same owner may include several lots owned by him, p. 181.

Cited to same effect in Malone v. Big Flat etc. Co., 76 Cal. 583, as to 'joinder of claims of liens of different persons on different portions of adjoining placer claims worked as one mine.

Striking Out Denials in Answers.-General denial in verified answer is inadmissible and properly stricken out, p. 182.

Cited in note on general subject to People v. McCumber, 72 Am. Dec.

523.

Reclamation Districts.-Action of supervisors upon petition for formation of is conclusive, p. 183.

Cited to same effect in San Mateo v. Maloney, 71 Cal. 208, on point that official judgment and discretion, when within jurisdiction, cannot be reviewed by courts; Spaulding v. Homestead etc. Assn., 87 Cal. 42, 45, as to judicial action of supervisors upon petition for grading; Board v. Tregea, 88 Cal. 354 (cited in Fallbrook etc. District v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 173), as to decision upon what lands would be benefited by irrigation; Reclamation District v. Phillips, 108 Cal. 310, 311, 313, 321, as to formation of reclamation district, and holding, further, as to collateral attack on validity of assessment; Jackson v. Dyer, 104 Ind. 517, as to sufficiency of notice of hearing on drainage proceedings; Lingo v. Burford, 112 Mo. 155, as to proceedings in county court in opening road, and finding of fact of notice therein. Cited also, in note on general subject to Jones v. Camden, 51 Am. St. Rep. 842.

Reclamation Districts.-Legislature has power to create, p. 184.

Cited to same effect in Reclamation District v. Hagar, 6 Saw. 572, 573, 4 Fed. Rep. 371, 372, holding, further, that lands derived from Mexican grant may be included therein, and following main case also as to method of assessments; Morrison v. Morey, 146 Mo. 565, noted under Emery v. Gas Co., 28 Cal. 345.

Judicial Notice extends to private statutes, p. 188.

Cited in note on general subject to Lanfear v. Mestier, 89 Am. Dec. 671.

Findings of Probative Facts is sufficient when conclusion of necessary ultimate fact is inevitable therefrom, p. 189.

Cited in McCray v. Burr, 125 Cal. 638, noted under Coveny v. Hale, 49 Cal. 552; Water Company v. Richardson, 72 Cal. 601, sustaining finding on plea of statute of limitations; Bull v. Bray, 89 Cal. 288, holding insufficient a finding as to fraudulent intent in transfer; Synnott v. Shaughnessy, 2 Idaho, 115, sustaining finding as to discovery of vein.

52 Cal. 192-196. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COLONY ASSOCIATION v. BUSTAMENTE.

Corporate Officers.-Authority to execute instrument is shown by affixing of corporate seal thereto, p. 196.

Cited to same effect in Schallard v. Eel River etc. Co., 70 Cal. 146, as to mortgage signed by president and secretary and sealed; Wharf etc. Co. v. Simpson, 77 Cal. 290, as to lease, where seal is shown to have been affixed by proper officer; Vaca etc. Co. v. Mansfield, 84 Cal. 566, holding showing merely prima facie, and contradicted by facts proved; Underhill v. Santa Barbara etc. Co., 93 Cal. 314, as to note and mortgage, holding, further, seal properly to be affixed by secretary; Union Pacific etc. Co. v. Chicago etc. Co., 51 Fed. Rep. 327, as to contract of railroad signed by president and secretary allowing another road joint use of bridge for 999 Years; Sioux City etc. Co. v. Trust Co., 82 Fed. Rep. 137, as to mortgage signed by president and secretary although differing in form from resolution authorizing its execution. Cited, also, in notes on general subject to Green Co. v. Blodgett, 50 Am. St. Rep. 156, and to Morrison v. Gas Co., 64 Am. St. Rep. 261.

Authority of Corporate Officers must be derived from resolution of board where not otherwise established, p. 196.

Cited to same effect in Alta etc. Co. v. Mining Co., 78 Cal. 633, as to mortgage, where seal not affixed and no resolution passed; Salfield v. Sutter, etc. Co., 94 Cal. 549, as to authorization of agent to execute land contract; Gribble v. Columbus etc. Co., 100 Cal. 74, but holding rule inapplicable where ratification was at issue; Barney v. Pforr, 117 Cal. 58, as to deed without corporate seal and holding neither authority nor ratification shown.

52 Cal. 196-198. BANK OF SONOMA COUNTY v. FAIRBANKS.

"Bank" does not include deposit and loan association which does not issue paper to circulate as money, p. 198.

Cited to same effect in Bank v. Hemme etc. Co., 105 Cal. 377, constructing sections 34 and 35 of Article IV of the Constitution of 1849; Dearborn v. Bank, 42 Ohio St. 622, 51 Am. Rep. 854, construing "associations with banking powers" under local acts.

52 Cal. 198-201. SAN FRANCISCO v. FORD.

Tax Collector Must Pay into Treasury all taxes collected, even if illegal and paid under protest, p. 201.

Cited in Craig v. Boone, 146 Cal. 719, action does not lie against tax collector to recover taxes paid to him under protest; People v. Weineke, 122 Cal. 539, on point that statute in action on bond begins to run when moneys are so payable; Phelan v. San Francisco, 120 Cal. 5, holding, further, city not liable to repay such taxes when not paid under duress;

Ratterman v. State, 44 Ohio St. 644; dissenting opinion Hamer v. Weber County, 11 Utah, 27, discussing power to withhold moneys in payment of his own claims.

52 Cal. 206-208. PICO v. GALLARDO.

Possession is Evidence tending to prove notice of occupant's equities, p. 208.

Cited to same effect in Emeric v. Alvarado, 90 Cal. 473, holding notice not shown by facts.

Mortgage in Form of Deed.-Grantee may recover in ejectment thereon unless defendant alleges fact and offers to redeem, p. 208.

Cited to same effect in Montgomery v. Speck, 55 Cal. 358, sustaining decree for conditional foreclosure. Overruled in Hyde v. Mangan, 88 Cal. 325, holding facts provable under denial of plaintiff's title; and see dissenting opinion in Allen v. Allen, 95 Cal. 203, 204, discussing conflicting decisions and right to redeem from such mortgagee. Cited, also, in Carpenter v. Lewis, 119 Cal. 21, on point that vendee from such grantee, without notice, takes title free from all equities. Cited, also, in note to Hayward v. Worthington, 35 Am. Dec. 128, on admissibility of parol evidence to show such deed to be a mortgage.

52 Cal. 208-211. PEOPLE v. AHERN.

Swamp Land Assessment is invalid unless commissioners have followed statute in proceedings, p. 211.

Cited to same effect in Swamp Land District v. Gwynn, 70 Cal. 570 (cited in Reclamation District v. Phillips, 108 Cal. 322), holding certifi cate not conclusive as to performance of such acts.

52 Cal. 211-212. PEOPLE v. ENGLISH.

Bill of Exceptions in Criminal Case will be presumed to contain all material evidence given bearing upon point involved, p. 212.

Cited to same effect in People v. Buckley, 116 Cal. 148, holding further as to insertion of original papers, upon question of insufficiency of evidence; but see People v. Dye, 62 Cal. 524, distinguishing main case, where bill stated merely that each party introduced evidence to sustain respective contentions; dissenting opinion in People v. Coulter, 145 Cal. 77, 78, majority holding where on appeal from conviction for burglary in second degree only question raised as to whether verdict was contrary to evidence, and judgment roll and bill of exceptions showed affirmatively that bill does not contain all evidence and purports only to give evidence directed to time of offense, other questions as to insufficiency of evidence to sustain verdict not reviewable; United States v. Alexander, 2 Idaho, 360, as to voir dire examination of juror; dissenting opinion in Territory v. Neilson, 2 Idaho, 589, main opinion