Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/535

 528 FEDERAL REPORTER. �the court of appeals, on the ground above stated, reversed the judgments below. That was a direct proceeding, before any bonds had been issued, and, in the decision, the court of appeals said : "In this case the rights of third persons are not in question, and we can, without injustice to any one, afSrm the conclusion we have reached, that the county judge did not acquire jurisdietion of the proceedings, on the ground of the omission to state in the petition that the company named therein was a corporation in this state." �In The People v. Smith, (55 N. Y., 135,) the court of appeals of New York held, under the same two statutes, that the petition, in order to give the county judge jurisdietion, must show that the petitioners are not only a majority of the tax payers of the municipal corporation to which it relates, but that they are a majority, "not including those taxed for dogs or highway tax only." In that case the county judge, on a petition which did not show that the petitioners were a majority, "not including those taxed for dogs or highway tax only," had refused to make an adjudication for the bonding of the town. The general term of the supreme court reviewed bis order, and remanded the case for a rehearing before him, and the court of appeals reversed the judgment of the gen- erai term. "The court of appeals said the petition in this case did not show that the petitioners were a majority of the tax payers of the town of Gorham, excluding those taxed for dogs or highway tax only, and the county judge acquired no jurisdietion of the proceedings. His authority could only be revoked by the presentation of a petition in conformity with the statute, and he could not, on his own motion, dis- pense with the performance of a condition precedent to the exercise of the authority conferred by the act." The peti- tion in that case contained no allusion to persons taxed for dogs or highway tax only, nor did the affidavit of verifica- tion, 80 far as appears. It was a direct proceeding before any bonds had been issued. �In Wellsboro v. N. Y. e C. R. Co. 76 N. Y. 182, the county judge, on a petition under the same two statutes, which made no reference to persons taxed for dogs or highway tax ����