
    (January 2, 1912.)
    SUNNYSIDE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Respondent, v. JAMES T. STEPHENS, Appellant.
    [120 Pac. 169.]
    Irrigation District — Organization or — Bonds or District.
    (Syllabus by the court.)
    1. Held, under the facts of this case that the judgment of the lower eourt must be affirmed.
    APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for "Washington County. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge.
    Action for the confirmation of the organization of an irrigation district and voting bonds on said district. Judgment of confirmation.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    Vari an. & 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 asking that this court approve this contract.
   SULLIVAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court confirming generally and specifically all acts and things done and performed by the board of county commissioners in the organization of the Sunnyside Irrigation District situated in "Washington county, and 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 up to the date of the filing of the petition for the confirmation of the organization of said district.

The petition for the confirmation of said district sets forth specifically the acts and things done in the organization of said district and the voting of $565,000 in bonds on said district, the amount determined to be necessary to carry out the said district’s plans. A demurrer to the petition was filed and overruled by the court and judgment of confirmation entered. Counsel for appellant assigns no specific errors of the trial court in its procedure or judgment, and it was conceded by counsel for respective parties that the irrigation district law has been complied with in every particular in the organization of said district and in the voting of said bonds. That being true, for the purposes of this case this court holds that all of the proceedings required by law to be taken and done in the organization of said district and in voting said bonds have been done, and that the judgment of confirmation entered by the district court must be sustained and the judgment 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.)  