
    [Civil No. 3947.
    Filed May 9, 1938.]
    [ 79 Pac. (2d) 360. ]
    In the Matter of the Annexation to the CITY OF PHOENIX of Certain Contiguous Territory (Annexation District “C”). JOHN H. UDALL, as Mayor of the City of Phoenix, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Arizona, Appellant, v. J. W. McANNALLY, M. P. CROSBY, PERRY WILLIAMS and JUAN MARTINEZ, Appellee.
    Mr. I. A. Jennings, City Attorney, Mr. Hess Seaman and Mr. Richard F. Harless, his Assistants; Messrs. Snell, Strouss & Salmon, Mr. J. Early Craig, Messrs. Kibbey, Bennett, Gust, Smith & Rosenfeld, Mr. T. G. McKesson, Mr. Frank J. Duffy, Mr. T. A. Carson, Mr. Emmett R. Feighner and Mr. Evan S. Stallcup, for Appellant,
    Messrs. Palmer & Cornelius and Messrs. Cunningham & Carson, for Appellees.
    Mr. E. C. Locklear, City Attorney, Prescott; Mr. G. H. Drumm, City Attorney, Winslow; Mr. William H. Westover, City Attorney, Yuma; Mr. Stephen D. Monahan, City Attorney, Nogales; Mr. Cullen A. Little, City Attorney, Globe; Mr. George F. Senner, City Attorney, Miami; Mr. James A. Walsh, City Attorney, Mesa; Mr. Martin Gentry, City Attorney, Will-cox; Mr. A. Van Wagenen, Jr., City Attorney, Casa Grande; Mr. Edward R. Byers, Town Attorney, Williams; Mr. I. F. Wolpe, Jr., Town Attorney, Wickenburg; Mr. James T. Gentry, City Attorney, Bisbee; Mr. Orinn C. Compton, City Attorney, Flagstaff; Mr. B. G. Thompson, City Attorney, Tucson, and Mr. Arthur Henderson, of Counsel, for City of Tucson, Amici Curiae.
    
   PER CURIAM.

The question for review in this case is the same as that in case No. 3945, Udall v. Severn, ante, p. 65, 79 Pac. (2d) 347, and is controlled by the decision just handed down in that case. Under the stipulation of counsel it was submitted upon the same briefs and statement of facts.

The same order will be made as in case No. 3945.

MoALISTER, C. J., and ROSS and LOCKWOOD, JJ., concur.  