
    [Sac. No. 3867.
    In Bank.
    February 28, 1927.]
    J. W. BROWNING, Appellant, v. RECLAMATION DISTRICT No. 108, Respondent.
    [i] Reclamation Districts—Reclamation and Irrigation—Validity 05 Assessment.—The judgment in this case is affirmed upon the authority of Nérshey et al. v. Reclamation District No. 108 et al., ante, p. 550.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Colusa County. George H. Thompson, Judge Presiding. Affirmed.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    Seth Millington for Appellant.
    Thos. Rutledge and Devlin & Devlin for Respondent.
   THE COURT.

The sufficiency of the identical plans and estimates and the validity of the ássessment levied upon plaintiff’s lands thereunder are attacked upon this appeal by appellant herein upon substantially the same grounds as were urged in Ella L. Hershey et al. v. Reclamation District No. 108 et al., ante, p. 550 [254 Pac. 542], The main questions presented by this appeal were specifically disposed of in the ease of Ella L. Hershey et al. v. Reclamation District 108 et al., supra. In appellant’s opening brief he concedes the legality of the assessment levied upon all the lands within the district “for drains, levees, pumps and other matters incident to reclamation as the same had always been known and recognized prior to the amendment of section 3455, Political Code, as amended by the legislature of 1917 (Stats. 1917, p. 1197) and under the new section added to the Political Code by the legislature of 1921 . . . (Stats. 1921, p. 1590).” The objection specifically urged is to “that part of the assessment that has to do with the strictly irrigation features.” No other questions not decided in the case above referred to are raised in appellant’s opening brief. In the reply brief appellant questions the correctness of two findings upon minor matters which could not in any event affect the result of the decision. Upon the grounds heretofore stated the judgment appealed from is affirmed.  