The board of directors of an irrigation district organized under the provisions of this article may commence special proceedings, in and by which the proceedings of said board and of said district providing for and authorizing the issue and sale of the bonds of said district, whether said bonds or any of them have or have not been sold or disposed of, may be judicially examined, approved, and confirmed. Special proceedings may be commenced by which the proceedings of the district providing for the authorization of a contract with the United States and the validity of said contract, and whether or not the said contract has been executed, may be judicially examined, approved, and confirmed.
Source: L. 05: p. 271, § 50. R.S. 08: § 3489. L. 17: p. 311, § 16. C.L. § 2050. CSA: C. 90, § 427. CRS 53: § 149-1-51. C.R.S. 1963: § 150-1-51.
ANNOTATION
One, and perhaps the chief, object of proceedings under this section is thus to validate the bonds by a decree in advance of their issue, thereby facilitating their sale and enhancing their value. Ahern v. Bd. of Dirs., 39 Colo. 409, 89 P. 963 (1907).
Action of county commissioners in excluding lands may be reviewed. Under this section the action of the county commissioners in excluding lands, where there was an abuse of power but no fraud or bad faith, may be reviewed in a special proceeding by the board of directors of the irrigation district to determine the validity of the organization and bond issue. Ahern v. Bd. of Dirs., 39 Colo. 409, 89 P. 963 (1907).
Directors must prove qualifications of signers of petition when in issue. In a special proceeding under this section, where an issue is made concerning the qualifications of the signers of the petition presented to the county commissioners, the board of directors must prove such qualifications. Ahern v. Bd. of Dirs., 39 Colo. 409, 89 P. 963 (1907).
Evidence actually produced before the court. The board of directors cannot rely upon the decision of the county commissioners that, in the opinion of that body, proof of the qualifications of the signers of the petition presented to them was made; nor can it introduce in evidence transcripts or copies of the evidence heard before the county commissioners or before its own body to prove any of the issues in said proceeding, since the court must determine such questions upon evidence actually produced before it. Ahern v. Bd. of Dirs., 39 Colo. 409, 89 P. 963 (1907).
The best evidence. In a special proceeding by the board of directors of an irrigation district to have the validity of its organization and bond issue determined, in proof of the qualifications of the signers of the petition presented to the county commissioners, affidavits of the circulators of the petition stating in general terms that the signers of the petition had the statutory qualifications were introduced in evidence, such circulators later testified to the same effect, and abstracts of title showing the record owners were also introduced in evidence. It was held that such documents were not admissible; that the rule requiring the best evidence was violated, without showing necessity for secondary evidence; and that the large expense necessary to obtain the oral evidence or depositions of the signers, of itself, is no reason for dispensing with such evidence. Ahern v. Bd. of Dirs., 39 Colo. 409, 89 P. 963 (1907).
Decree confirming previous like issue is competent evidence of regular organization. In a proceeding by an irrigation district under this and the following sections, seeking confirmation of a proposed issue of bonds, a decree of the court confirming a previous like issue is competent evidence of the regular organization of the district. Wilder v. Bd. of Dirs., 55 Colo. 363, 135 P. 461 (1913).
The supreme court passes upon the objections to the confirmatory decree only so far as they bear upon the propositions whether the proceedings had for the organization of the district and the issuance of bonds thereby after the organization, are, or are not, in harmony with the constitutional and statutory provisions which they are said to violate. Anderson v. Grand Valley Irrigation Dist., 35 Colo. 525, 85 P. 313 (1906).