
    (January 2, 1912.)
    CRANE CREEK IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Respondent, v. JAMES K. MARTIN, Appellant.
    [120 Pac. 169.]
    Irrigation District — Organization op — Bonds op District.
    (Syllabus by tbe court.)
    1. Held, under tbe faets of this ease that tbe judgment of tbe lower eourt must be affirmed.
    APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District for Washington County. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge.
    Proceedings for the confirmation of the organization of an irrigation district and the voting of certain district bonds. Judgment of confirmation.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    Varian & Norris, for Appellant, file no brief.
    Ed. R. Coulter, for Respondent.
    In drawing this contract and in the adoption of the various resolutions of the board of directors that were adopted, counsel for the district had before him and relied upon the ease of Stowell v. Rialto Irr. Dist., 155 Cal. 215, 100 Pac. 248, and it is upon the strength of this case that our whole proceedings were had. It is upon the authority of this case that we are ashing that this court approve this contract.
   SULLIVAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of confirmation, confirming all of the acts and things done and performed in the organization of Crane Creek Irrigation District, situated in Washington county, and confirming all acts and things, done and performed by said district and its board of directors, from the filing of the petition for the organization of said district to thé date of filing the petition for confirmation of the organization of said district in the district court of Washington county.

The petition for confirmation sets forth fully all acts and things done in the organization of said district and in the voting of $256,000 in bonds on said district, that being the amount that had been determined to be necessary to carry out the plans of said district. A demurrer to the petition was filed and overruled by the court and judgment of confirmation entered. Counsel for appellant assigns no specific error of the trial court in its procedure or judgment, and it is conceded by respective counsel that the law in regard to the organization of irrigation districts had been complied with in every particular in the organization of said district and in the voting of said bonds. The district court found that all acts and things done and performed by the board of county commissioners in the organization of said district and all acts and things, done and performed by said district and by its board of directors, from the filing of the petition for the organization of said district to and including the filing of the petition for the confirmation of said proceedings, were legal and valid, and entered judgment confirming all of said proceedings, including' the. voting of said bonds.

We therefore conclude that said judgment of confirmation must be affirmed and it is so ordered, with costs in favor of the respondent.

Stewart, C. J., concurs.

AILSHIE, J.,

Concurring.- — -There is nothing before the court in this case to consider. Appellant assigns no error whatever on the part of the trial court, but, on the contrary, admits that the judgment is correct. There -being no issue or controversy presented to this court, the appeal should, in conformity with the statute and rules of the court, be dismissed, which would in effect affirm the judgment. (Sec. 4823, Rev.- Codes.)  