« PreviousContinue »
is not in conflict with this provision. (California Southern R. R. Co. v. Kimball, 61 Cal. 90; Tehama Co. v. Bryan, 68 Cal, 57, 8 Pac. 673; City of L. A. v. Pomeroy, 124 Cal. 397, 57 Pac. 585.)
The provision for just compensation only requires that a certain and adequate remedy be provided by which the owner can obtain his compensation without unreasonable delay; and a law providing for a jury to determine the value, that the money be paid into the county treasury for the owner, to be paid to him when his ownership is ascertained, is valid. (Gilmer v. Lime Point, 18 Cal. 229.)
A municipal corporation has no power to take a lot to which it has no title, which is in the actual possession of another, who clainrs to be the owner, although he in fact is not, and appropriate it to the use of the public, without paying compensation. (Gunter v. Geary, 1 Cal. 462.)
The property of a citizen cannot be taken from him for public use, unless ample means of remuneration are provided. (McCann Sierra County, 7 Cal. 121.)
A municipal corporation cannot take private property for public use without making compensation in advance or providing a fund out of which compensation shall be made as soon as the amount to be paid can be determined. (Colton v. Rossi, 9 Cal. 595.)
The legislature has no power to take the property of one person and give it to another; nor can it be taken for public use, unless compensation to the owner precede or accompany the taking. (Gillan v. Hutchinson, 16 Cal. 153.)
An act directing the governor to take possession of the state prison in the possession of a lessee, without making any provision for compensation, is void. (McCauley v. Weller, 12 Cal. 500.)
The act of 1863, providing for the widening of streets in San Francisco by agreement with the owners, does not deprive the owners of any right or privilege guaranteed by this section. (San Francisco v. Kiernan, 98 Cal. 614, 33 Pac. 720.)
Allowance of Benefits.-Prior to the present Constitution, general benefits could be set off against damages, and the owner thus compensated. (California Pac. R. R. Co. v. Armstrong, 46 Cal. 85.)
Under the present Constitution there can be no reduction for general benefits in any case, and section 1248 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows such benefits to be deducted in the case of a natural person, which cannot be allowed under the Constitution to a private corporation is invalid. (Beveridge v. Lewis, 137 Cal. 619, 92 Am. St. Rep. 188, 67 Pac. 1040, 70 Pac. 1083.)
Under section 14 of article I of the Constitution, when a right of way is appropriated to the use of any corporation other than municipal, full compensation must be made to the owner irrespective of any benefit from the proposed improvement; and in the proceeding to condemn a right of way for a railroad it is error to allow proof of benefits which might result from the building of the railroads to the land of defendant not taken. (San Jose etc. R. R. Co. v. Mayne, 83 Cal. 566, 23 Pac. 522.)
Private individuals may condemn land for railroad purposes, and are entitled to deduct from the damages to land not taken the amount of benefits accruing from the improvement to such land. The provisions of section 12 of article I of the Constitution prescribing such deduction are confined in their terms to corporations other than municipal and do not apply to the case of condemnation of private individuals. The fact that the Constitution and statutes have unjustly prescribed two distinct rules of damages, one for corporations and another for private individuals, is a matter with which the courts have nothing to do, the provisions of the law being plain and unambiguous. (Moran v. Ross, 79 Cal. 549, 21 Pac. 958. But see Beveridge v. Lewis, 137 Cal. 619, 92 Am. St. Rep. 188, 67 Pac. 1040, 70 Pac. 1083.)
Compensation in condemnation proceedings should consider noi only benefit to remaining land, but also loss which it may sustain. (San Francisco etc. Co. v. Caldwell, 31 Cal. 367. To same effect: California etc. Co. v. Armstrong, 46 Cal. 91; San Diego etc. Co. v. Neale, 78 Cal. 75, 20 Pac. 372. Note citation: 45 Am. Dec. 533.)
An act requiring commissioners, in assessing the value of lands sought to be taken by a railroad company, to make allowance for any benefit that will accrue to the person whose lands are taken, is valid. (San Francisco etc. R. R. Co. v. Caldwell, 31 Cal. 367.)
The increased cost of irrigation which would be caused by the building of a railroad is a legitimate subject of inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining the damage sustained by the owner. (San Bernardino etc. Ry. Co. v. Haven, 94 Cal. 489, 29 Pac. 489.)
Under the former Constitution, where the land taken is a part only of a tract, the difference between the value of the tract without the improvement and with it is the compensation to be madle. (San Francisco etc. R. R. Co. v. Caldwell, 31 Cal. 367.)
The defendant is entitled to receive for a strip of land taken for an alley an amount equal to that for which it could have been sold in the open market, on the day of the summons, for cash, after reasonable time taken by the owner to make the sale. (Santa Ana v. Brunner, 132 Cal. 235, 64 Pac. 287.)
The provision of this section, providing for compensation, “irrespective of any benefit from any improvement proposed,” is not limited to the land taken, but also to the land not taken, and the damages to the property not taken must be fixed, irrespective of benefit which may result from the proposed improvement. (San Bernardino etc. Ry. Co. v. Haven, 94 Cal. 489, 29 Pac. 875.)
The provision of this section, prohibiting any deduction from the damages to land not taken of the amount of benefits accruing from the improvement to such land, only applies to “corporations other than municipal," and does not apply to individuals. (Moran 1. Ross, 79 Cal. 549, 21 Pac. 549. See Beveridge v. Lewis, 137 Cal. 619.)
In a proceeding by a railroad corporation to condemn land for its road, the compensation to be awarded the owner must be ascertained irrespective of any benefit that will accrue to the remainder of his land from the building of the road. (Pacific Coast Ry. Co. v. Porter, 74 Cal. 261, 15 Pac. 774.)
The benefit derived from the proposed improvement cannot be given in evidence or considered as an element of the value of the lands taken. (San Diego L. & T. Co. v. Neale, 88 Cal. 50, 25 Pac. 977; City of Santa Ana v. Harlin, 99 Cal. 543, 34 Pac. 224.)
The court cannot set off the benefits which will accrue to the owner by opening a road against the value of the lands taken. (Ventura Co. v. Thompson, 51 Cal. 577.)
§ 22. Appropriations in aid of corporations. $ 25. Special legislation prohibited.
26. Sale of stock on margins. $ 31. Public aid to corporations. § 33. Regulation of telegraph, gas, storage and wharfage rates. APPROPRIATIONS IN AID OF CORPORATIONS.
Sec. 22, Art. IV. No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law, and upon warrants duly drawn thereon by the controller; and no money shall ever be appropriated or drawn from the state treasury for the use or benefit of any corporation, association, asylum, hospital, or any other institution not under the exclusive management and control of the state as a state institution, nor shall any grant or donation of property ever be made thereto by the state; provided, that notwithstanding anything contained in this or any other section of this constitution, the legislature shall have the power to grant aid to institutions conducted for the support and maintenance of minor orphans, or half-orphans, or abandoned children, or aged persons in indigent circumstances-such aid to be granted by a uniform rule, and proportioned to the number of inmates of such respective institutions; provided further, that the state shall have, at any time, the right to inquire into the management of such institutions; provided further, that whenever any county, or city and county, or city, or town shall provide for the support of minor orphans, or half-orphans, or abandoned children, or aged persons in indigent circumstances, such county, city and county, city, or town shall be entitled to receive the same pro rata appropriations as may be granted to such institutions under church or other control. An accurate statement of the receipts and expenditures of public moneys shall be attached to and published with the laws at every regular session of the legislature.
The intent of this section is not so much to regulate aid and subsidies to private business corporations or enterprises in which the state had no interest (for which see section 31, article IV, and section 13, article XII of the Constitution, post), as to prohibit the promiscuous aiding of so-called charitable institutions and to restrict the state aid to such institutions as were thought to be deserving of such assistance. (Constitutional Debates, p. 783.)
The analogous section in the Constitution of 1849 is section 23 of article IV of that Constitution, and is as follows: No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law. An accurate statement of the receipts and expenditures of the public moneys shall be attached to and published with "the laws at every regular session of the legislature.
There are no citations of this section relating to private or business enterprises.
Aid to Corporation in Time of War.-Such a provision does not prohibit the legislature from appropriating its funds in time of war to aid a corporation in the construction of a railroad to be used by the state for military purposes. (People v. Pacheco, 27 Cal. 175.)
Aid to Agricultural Associations.—Under the provisions of this section it became impossible for the state to grant aid to the state agricultural society as a private or quasi public corporation. In 1880 (Stats. 1880, p. 49) it was changed to a state institution and ever since has been such an institution and received aid as such. (Melvin v. State, 121 Cal. 16, 53 Pac. 416.)
SPECIAL LEGISLATION PROHIBITED.
Sec. 25, Art. IV. The legislature shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases, that is
Sixteenth-Releasing or extinguishing, in whole or in part, the indebtedness, liability, or obligation of any corporation or person to this state, or to any municipal corporation therein.
See article XII, section 7, post.
Nineteenth-Granting to any corporation, association, or individual any special or exclusive right, privilege, or immunity.
See article XII, section 1, post.
Twenty-fifth-Chartering or licensing ferries, bridges, or roads.
Twenty-sixth-Remitting fines, penalties, or forfeitures.
There is nothing in the old Constitution which forbids the legislature from passing local or special laws, except in respect to the formation of corporations other than municipal. (Const. 1849, seca, 31, art. IV.) This section of the old Constitution is considered under section 1 of article VII of the present Constitution, post.
In General: Earle v. Board of Education, 55 Cal. 490; People v. Hoge, 55 Cal. 618; University of Cal. v. Bernard, 57 Cal. 613; Ex parte Burke, 59 Cal. 8, 43 Am. Rep. 237; S. F. & N. R. R. R. Co. v. Board, 60 Cal. 32; S. V. W. W. v. S. F., 61 Cal. 38; People v. Chapman, 61 Cal. 267; Moble v. Tschirch, 63 Cal. 382; Miller v. Dunn, 72 Cal. 466, 1 Am. St. Rep. 67, 14 Pac. 27; Thomason v. Ashworth, 73 Cal. 77, 14 Pac. 615; People v. McFadden, 81 Cala 499, 15 Am. St. Rep. 66, 22 Pac. 851; Abeel v. Clark, 84 Cal. 229, 24 Pac. 383; Ex parte Williams, 87 Cal. 79, 24 Pac. 602, 25 Pac. 248; Rollins v. Wright, 93 Cal. 400, 29 Pac. 58; Levy v. Superior Ct., 105 Cal. 616, 38 Pac. 965; People v. Lodi etc. Dist., 124 Cal. 696, 57 Pac. 660. Subdivision 19: People v. Superior Court, 100 Cal. 120, 34 Pac. 492; Tulare Co. v. May, 118 Cal. 306, 50 Pac. 427; People v. Lodi etc. Dist., 124 Cal. 698, 57 Pac. 660.
Local and Special Laws-In General.—Under the former constitution the legislature was not forbidden to pass local or special laws.