Page images
PDF
EPUB

The proceedings of the board of supervisors, in establishing a road, involves the exercise of judicial functions in the sense of rendering those proceedings the subject of review through the instrumentality of a writ of certiorari. Keys v. Marin County, 42 Cal. 252.

An order of the board of supervisors, creating a district for the reclamation of swamp land, is an act of legislation, in the exercise of the taxing or police power of the state, which is not reviewable upon certiorari, such a writ as a remedy, being available only for the review of an act judicial in its character. Williams v. Board of Supervisors, 65 Cal. 160.

A legislative act is one which predetermines what the law shall be for the regulation of future cases falling under its provisions, while a judicial act is a determination of what the law is in relation to some existing thing done or happened. Whenever an act determines a question of right or obligation or of property as the foundation upon which it proceeds, such an act is to that extent judicial. Wulzen v. Board of Supervisors, 101 Cal. 15.

The object of the writ of certiorari is to annul, and not to restrain; and in such proceedinge the court cannot take cognizance of things in fieri. Consequently a resolution pending in the board of supervisors could not be reviewed in such a proceeding. Lamb v. Schottler, 54 Cal. 319.

Under section 14 of article I of the constitution of this state, the board of supervisors no longer have the power to condemn land for road purposes. Weber v. Board of Supervisors, 59 Cal. 265.

Certiorari will not lie to set aside the proceedings of a board of supervisors, in allowing an illegal claim against the county. Andrews v. Pratt, 44 Cal. 309.

Certiorari lies to review judicial functions only. Damrell v. Board of Supervisors, 40 Cal. 154; People v. Bush, 40 Cal. 344; Spring Valley W. W. v. Bryant, 52 Cal. 132; Cochran v. Board of Education, 54 Cal. 375; Townsend v. Copeland, 56 Cal. 612; Meyers v. Hamilton, 60 Cal. 289.

Unless circumstances of an extraordinary character be shown to have intervened, the remedy through a writ of certiorari should be held to be barred by the lapse of one year. Keys v. Board of Supervisors, 42 Cal. 252.

In the matter of the approval of the bonds of officers, boards of supervisors exercise judicial functions, and they have no jurisdiction to reject an official bond, except for the reasons that it is not in form and substance in compliance with the requireinents of the statute, or is not executed by sufficient and responsible sureties; and the Supreme Court will review on certiorari and annul an order of a board rejecting a bond for any other than one or more of said reasons. Miller v. Board of Supervisors, 25 Cal. 94.

Boards of supervisors of the several counties through which run railroads operated in more than one county have no jurisdiction

The proceedings of the board of supervisors, in establishing a road, involves the exercise of judicial functions in the sense of rendering those proceedings the subject of review through the instrumentality of a writ of certiorari. Keys v. Marin County, 42 Cal. 252.

An order of the board of supervisors, creating a district for the reclamation of swamp land, is an act of legislation, in the exercise of the taxing or police power of the state, which is not reviewable upon certiorari, such a writ as a remedy, being available only for the review of an act judicial in its character. Williams v. Board of Supervisors, 65 Cal. 160.

A legislative act is one which predetermines what the law shall be for the regulation of future cases falling under its provisions, while a judicial act is a determination of what the law is in relation to some existing thing done or happened. Whenever an act determines a question of right or obligation or of property as the foundation upon which it proceeds, such an act is to that extent judicial. Wulzen v. Board of Supervisors, 101 Cal. 15.

The object of the writ of certiorari is to annul, and not to restrain; and in such proceedinge the court cannot take cognizance of things in fieri. Consequently a resolution pending in the board of supervisors could not be reviewed in such a proceeding. Lamb v. Schottler, 54 Cal. 319.

Under section 14 of article I of the constitution of this state, the board of supervisors no longer have the power to condemn land for road purposes. Weber v. Board of Supervisors, 59 Cal. 265.

Certiorari will not lie to set aside the proceedings of a board of supervisors, in allowing an illegal claim against the county. Andrews v. Pratt, 44 Cal. 309.

Certiorari lies to review judicial functions only. Damrell v. Board of Supervisors, 40 Cal. 154; People v. Bush, 40 Cal. 344; Spring Valley W. W. v. Bryant, 52 Cal. 132; Cochran v. Board of Education, 54 Cal. 375; Townsend v. Copeland, 56 Cal. 612; Meyers v. Hamilton, 60 Cal. 289.

Unless circumstances of an extraordinary character be shown to have intervened, the remedy through a writ of certiorari should be held to be barred by the lapse of one year. Keys v. Board of Supervisors, 42 Cal. 252.

In the matter of the approval of the bonds of officers, boards of supervisors exercise judicial functions, and they have no jurisdiction to reject an official bond, except for the reasons that it is not in form and substance in compliance with the requireinents of the statute, or is not executed by sufficient and responsible sureties; and the Supreme Court will review on certiorari and annul an order of a board rejecting a bond for any other than one or more of said reasons. Miller v. Board of Supervisors, 25 Cal. 94.

Boards of supervisors of the several counties through which run railroads operated in more than one county have no jurisdiction

to raise or lower the assessments placed upon the property of such roads by the state board of equalization. People v. Board of Supervisors, 59 Cal. 321.

The board of supervisors have no jurisdiction or power to reduce any assessment except upon verified written application. Garretson v. Board of Supervisors, 61 Cal. 54.

GENERAL NOTES. The following miscellaneous cases further elucidate the general powers and duties of officers charged with the administration of county business.

The board of supervisors have no power to issue the necessary certificate to exercise municipal franchise, where the petition for the incorporation of a municipality [municipal incorporation act, Stats. 1883, p. 93] is not signed by the requisite number of qualified persons, and a favorable vote of the people will not cure the defect of the petition. Page v. Board of Supervisors, 85 Cal. 51.

The constitution allows the classification of counties according to population for the purpose of regulating the compensation of county officers in proportion to their duties. But such classification having been made does not relieve a law relating to other and distinct matters from the objection that it is local and special if, by its terms it is limited in its application or operation to one or more classes of counties less than the whole.

The primary election law of 1895, [Stats.

« PreviousContinue »