« PreviousContinue »
need be given in such proceeding. Keena v. Board of Supervisors, 89 Cal. 14.
Where, in the original assessment roll, a special bridge tax in a road district was not carried to nor entered in the column headed “total tax," but the assessment roll showed clearly what the omitted total tax was, the omission may be supplied by the assessor, upon consent in writing of the district attorney, at any time prior to a sale for delinquent taxes. [Sec. 3881 Pol. Code.] County of San Luis Obispo v. White, 91 Cal. 434-438.
Eminent domain---see city of Pasadena v. Stimson, 91 Cal. 238 for numerous points—all equally applicable to county. And as to streets and highways, numerous points are decided in Oreño v. City o' Santa Barbara, 91 Cal. 621, and People ex rel. Roberts v. Beaudry, 91 Cal. 213, all equally applicable to counties.
The act of constructing and opening a toll road for use, followed by public user thereof, constitutes a dedication of it as a public road. The facts that tolls are demanded and that the public uses it only on condition of paying tolls, does not affect the question of dedication. The board of supervisors has no authority to grant a franchise to collect tolls upon a free public road. And
A franchise for a toll road, granted by the legislature for a period of twenty years, expires by limitation at the expiration of the twenty years, and the road then becomes a public highway. Blood v. Woods, 95 Cal. 81. A mere right of way for laying water pipes is not a franchise. Political Code 4016 reads: "To grant licenses and franchises, as provided by law, for constructing, keeping and taking tolls on roads, bridges, fences, wharves, chutes and piers.” This does not give power to grant a franchise for laying water pipe in one county by which water for common distribution and sale in another county is conducted. Spring Valley W. W. v. Barber, 99 Cal. 38.
The authority to close up and alter highways outside of municipalities is conferred upon the supervisors of the several counties, and can only be exercised through the instrumentalities and in the mode prescribed by statute. In strictness all public highways belong to the state, which holds them for the public use, subject to legislative control, ard the statute which provides that a road shall not be vacated until so ordered by the supervisors is as binding upon the state as upon individuals. People v. County of Marin, 103 Cal. 223.
As to transferring money from other funds to road fund, see notes under subdivision 18 of this section, infra.
SUBDIVISION 5: The county government act does not require that the county physician to be appointed by the supervisors should have received a degree in a medical college or university, but authorizes the appointment of one who has passed a satisfactory examination before the board of examiners of the state medical society, and is legally licensed to practice medicine and surgery under the laws of the state. "Suitable graduate of medicine” construed. People v. Eichelroth, 78 Cal. 142.
SUBDIVISION 8: Supervisors may be restrained by injunction from awarding contract for erecting county jail where the element of competition among bidders has been eliminated by allowing bidders to furnish the plans upon which their respective bids are made. The supervisors have no power to let contract for construction of jail, or a material part of jail upon plans furnished by the respective bidders. Competition is contemplated by the law, and plans prepared for the board must be bid upon by all intending contractors. Ertle v. Leary, 114 Cal. 241.
No alterations of plans increasing cost can be made except upon vote of two-thirds of members. Section 37, this act, infra.
SUBDIVISION 9: A resolution of the board of supervisors adopting certain plans for a jail submitted to them by an architect in pursuance of their proposal therefor, on condition that the board receive a bid from a reliable party who would give sufficient bonds to erect the jail in conformity with the plans for a specified sum, is an "adoption" of such plans within the meaning of subdivision 9, section 25 of county government act of 1883. County of Los Angeles, 74 Cal. 506.
The provision requiring notice by publication to be given for sixty days before letting contracts for the erection, building, etc., of courthouses and other public buildings does
not apply to repairs such as alterations in the courthouse and laying walks and making improvements upon the grounds. McGowan v. Ford, 107 Cal. 183.
The cells of a jail are part of the building, and contract for constructing same must be let only in accordance with these provisions. To receive bids and let contract on plans furnished by the respective bidders, is a violation of these provisions and unlawful. Ertle v. Leary et al., 114 Cal. 238.
SUBDIVISION 10: Supervisors may employ an expert to examine the books of county officers. Harris v. Gibbins, 114 Cal. 418.
SUBDIVISION 12: Highways include bridges. Political Code section 2618. And
The supervisors have power to call elections for levying taxes in road districts. Political Code sections 1054 to 1056. And
The action of the supervisors in ordering a special election in a road district, and directing publication of the proclamation, may be proved by oral evidence, if the clerk has neglected to record such action. The failure of the clerk to affix the official seal to, or properly record the official acts of the board does not necessarily affect their validity. The validity of the acts of the board does not depend upon the diligence of the clerk. County of San Luis Obispo v. White, 91 Cal. 435.
Subdivision 13 of section 25, of act of 1883, which corresponds to subdivision 12 of present section 25, is considered in connection and by way of comparison with section 37 of Wright act, governing directors of irrigation districts in the matter of levying assessments. Tregea v. Owens, 94 Cal. 319.
“That no tax shall be levied,” etc., applies only to such taxes as are levied upon property upon the advalorem principle, as prescribed by the constitution, and has no application to s'assessments” for local purposes where the charge is upon the property benefited and is fixed in proportion to the benefits. The county government act did not repeal the act of 1881 [Stats. p. 15), relating to the drainage of agricultural swamp land. Holley v. County of Orange, 106 Cal. 425.
It is held that the constitutional provision [Article XI, section 18], that iidebtedness in excess of the revenue of any year shall not be incurred unless "before or at the time of incurring such indebtedness provision shall be made for the collection of an annual tax," etc., does not mean that an interest tax should be levied at the time of the sale or issuance of the bonds. It only means that provision shall be made for the collection of an annual tax, the county government act itself provides for such tax. [Act. 1891, section 25, subdivision 14, subdivisions c. d. e.] Howland v. Board of Supervisors, 109 Cal. 155.
SUBDIVISION 13: The county government act of 1883, section 25, subdivision 14, required that bonds issued under that act should refer to the act. In so far as section 4048, Political Code, required such bonds to refer to that section, the code provision was repealed by the