139, 384 36 39 1891, Mar. 3, 26 Stat. 854, c. 539 79 245 1792, May 8, 1 Stat. 277, c. 1805, Mar. 2, 2 Stat. 324, c. 110, 491 1807, Mar. 3, 2 Stat. 440, c. 1814, Apr. 18, 3 Stat. 133, c. 201, 202, 264, 265 1824, Mar. 8, 4 Stat. 8, c. 26 245 1892, May 5, 27 Stat. 25, c. 60 1842, May 18, 5 Stat. 475, c. 29 245 1849, Mar. 3, 9 Stat. 403, c. 1853, Feb. 26, 10 Stat. 161, c. 1855, Feb. 24, 10 Stat. 612, c. 1857, Feb. 26, 11 Stat. 166, c. 121 373 | 1894, Aug. 18, 28 Stat. 390, c. 301 216, 220, 222 304, 305 280, 281 1897, Feb. 3, 29 Stat. 510, c. 136 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 514 1898, June 28, 30 Stat. 495, c. 517 502 1899, Mar. 3, 30 Stat. 1004, c. 413 84, 93 Revised Statutes. 240, 246 1896, May 28, 29 Stat. 184, c. 252 122 234 60 375, 381 1858, May 11, 11 Stat. 285, c. 31 376 1863, Mar. 3, 12 Stat. 772, c. 98 130 1864, Mar. 21, 13 Stat. 30, c. 36 399, 512 1901, Mar. 2, 31 Stat. 950, c. 808 1864, July 2, 13 Stat. 365, c. 217 399 1865, Feb. 27, 13 Stat. 440, c. 64 512 1866, July 26, 14 Stat. 251, c. 262 146 1869, Apr. 10, 16 Stat. 45, c. 23 156 1871, Feb. 6, 16 Stat. 404, c. 38 397 1874, June 6, 18 Stat. 62, c. 223 46 1875, Feb. 22, 18 Stat. 333, c. 95 237 1875, Mar. 3, 18 Stat. 470, c. 137 287, 288 1878, June 3, 20 Stat. 88, c. 150 495 1882, May 6, 22 Stat. 58, c. 126 215, 216, 220, 222, 303 1884, July 5, 23 Stat. 115, c. 220 387, 388 $ 574.. .242, 246, 252, 253, 254 $$ 583, 584.. .241, 242, 247 $629... 285 § 638..242, 243, 246, 252, 253, 254 S$ 671, 672... .241, 242, 247 § 709...41, 45, 113, 152, 180, 188 § 828. .239, 240, 246, 247, 253 247 85 281 241, 246 504 .124, 125 426 430 § 831 § 5197..180, 182, 185, 186, 187, 188 ..172, 179, 180, 182, 185, 186, 187, 188 § 4888.. § 5198.. § 5219. 276 185 377, 379, 381, 391, 394 CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, AT OCTOBER TERM, 1901. TULARE IRRIGATION DISTRICT v. SHEPARD. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE No. 508. Submitted January 13, 1902.-Decided March 24. 1902. The Tulare irrigation district, in California, issued and sold its bonds for the purpose of constructing its irrigation works. The proceeds were used for that purpose by the corporation, and the works were by means thereof constructed. The corporation then refused to pay the bonds, and denied its liability on them upon the ground that it was never legally organized as a corporation, and hence had no legal right to issue any bonds. Held, on the authority of Douglas County Commissioners v. Bolles, 94 U. S. 104, that common honesty demanded that a debt thus incurred should be paid; and that there was nothing in the facts in this case to set aside the application of that principle; that if anything could constitute a de facto corporation the defendant is one and that, being thus a de facto corporation, none but the State can question its existence. Under the circumstances stated in the opinion of the court, the landowner is estopped from setting up the defence of the want of notice, as against the plaintiff in this case. THIS was a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of California, sued out for the purpose of reviewing a judgment of that court in favor of the defendant in error in an action brought by him against the irrigation district only, to recover interest due on certain coupons VOL. CLXXXV-1 (1) Statement of the Case. attached to bonds issued by the district for the purpose of raising money to build its irrigation works. It appeared from the complaint that the plaintiff was a resident of Michigan, and that the Tulare irrigation district had at all times since September 2, 1889, been a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of California, and since that time had been acting as such corporation; that under the laws of such State the irrigation district duly issued its bonds for the amount of $500,000 with coupons attached; that the plaintiff was a bona fide purchaser and holder of certain of those coupons, and that he had paid full value for the same, in the usual course of business and before any of them were due or dishonored, and in good faith and without any notice of any defect or invalidity of the same or any of them. Judgment for $13,185 and interest was demanded. The defendant demurred to the complaint, the demurrer was overruled, 94 Fed. Rep. 1, and the defendant then answered. The answer, among other things, set up various alleged irregularities and omissions which occurred in the attempted formation of the irrigation district, on account of which, as contended, the corporation never was legally formed and never had power to issue bonds, and whatever bonds may have been issued were for those reasons void. The individual defendants at this stage applied to the court for an order permitting them to intervene in the action as parties therein, and to unite with the defendant corporation in resisting the claims of the plaintiff in this action. The court thereupon ordered that the petitioners' complaint in intervention should be filed without prejudice to the plaintiff's motion to strike out the same. They then filed what they termed their complaint in intervention in this action, (which is nothing more than an answer to the complaint,) in which they set up that the defendant Kelly was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Massachusetts, and that ever since January 1, 1889, he had been and was at the time of the commencement of the suit the owner of the land which he described, and which was situate within the boundaries of the county of Tulare, California, and within the boundaries of the alleged Tulare irrigation district; that Jauchius, the other de |