Show Highest Court Holds Argyle And Others I In Bonneville The state te SUJ supreme reme court bli blighted the hopes of the water users who be- be believed believed be believed through the short cummings in water allotments and faulty de- de descriptions de descriptions the they could get out of the Bonneville Irrigation district on Wednesday when the following de- de decision de decision decision was handed down Reversing the judgment of the dis- dis district district dis district court of Davis county the supreme su- su supreme su supreme preme court Wednesday handed down an opinion which sustains the appeal of the Bonneville irrigation tion district of that cou county t and gives a substantial victory y to Davis count county officials The opinion was written b by Jus- Jus Justice Justice Jus Justice tice W H Folland and concurred in in unanimouSly William The opinion is in the case of Wil Wil- liam II If Argyle and others against the Bonneville irrigation dis- dis district district dis and others including the officers officers officers cers plaintiffs tiffs and county officials The IM plain plain- tiffs brou brought ht suit in equity against the irrigation irrigation tion district f tt t to enjoin the levy and ind collection of as- as as assessments for water 3 to the irrigation lands of plaintiffs by the tion district In the Second cond district court the I irrigation tion district and the county o of officials joined joined in a demurrer to the the I complaint This was overruled d and I the defendants elected to stand upon the ruling and allowed judgment to be tobe taken against them Whereupon the court issued the injunction an and the defendants appealed I It is unfortunate that case o of this importance is in this court upon demurrer to the complaint reads the opinion on of Justice Folland Un Un I questionably been an answer should a Vi- Vi been filed and the facts with refer refer- reference reference reference ence to the plattin platting of these lands and the formation of the district placed in the record so o we might have been sufficiently advised I in the premises I The case was argued in this court upon the theory that failure of the I state en engineer in er to make e particular deC descriptions of metes and bounds in t his report and water allotments de- de de I defeated jurisdiction In view of all the facts before us we cannot hold that I this alone e excludes ludes the lands o of the I plaintiffs from the district I After jurisdiction is is- once acqUired acquired by commissioners the board of county commission commission- ers in the formation of the dis district ct irregularities thereafter or deficiencies there there- after may be cured by appropriate action We hold therefore that the complaint herein did not state a cause demurrer of action and that the de- de de should have been sustained |