General
PEOPLE ex rel. FOGG v. PERRIS IRRIGATION DISTRICT (HUTCHINGS et al., Interveners)
6 Cal. Unrep. 34958 Pac. 907·Supreme Court of California·1899·CA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
PEOPLE ex rel. FOGG v. PERRIS IRRIGATION DISTRICT (HUTCHINGS et al., Interveners).
L. A. No. 743;
October 30, 1899.
58 Pac. 907.
Appeal—Merits.—Motion to Dismiss Appeal on the Ground that appellants have no interest Avill not be sustained.
APPEAL from Superior Court, Riverside County.
Quo warranto by the people, on the relation of one Fogg, against the Perris Irrigation District (one Hutchings and others, interveners). There was a judgment for plaintiffs and interveners appeal. Motion to dismiss appeal denied.
C. C. Wright, Wm. C. Cox and L. L. Boone for appellants; W. F. Fitzgerald, Attorney General Ford and Works & Lee for respondents.
For subsequent opinion, see 132 Cal. 289, 64 Pac. 399; 773.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This is a proceeding by quo warranto to determine the de jure existence of a de facto irrigation district. Certain bondholders of the district were allowed to intervene against the people, and have appealed from a judgment declaring the organization illegal. The people now move to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the interveners have no interest, there being no judgment against them. The motion involves the whole merits of- the case as presented on the part of the appellants by their intervention in the superior court and by their appeal. Want of merit in an appeal is not a ground for dismissing it. Motion denied.