Willer v. Quinn

California Court of Appeal Feb 20, 1935 No. Civ. 9472Published

Before: Sturtevant

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the Police Commission's resolution regarding the return of stolen property was a valid exercise of police power rather than an unconstitutional attempt to adjudicate property title, and that the Commission's legislative acts were not subject to review via writ of review.

Issues

Whether the Police Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in adopting the resolution regarding stolen property.
Whether the resolution is unconstitutional for purporting to adjudicate property title without notice.
Whether the petitioner utilized the proper legal remedy to challenge the revocation of his permit.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In adopting said resolution the Police Commission was exercising legislative functions and was not exercising judicial functions and such acts may not be inquired into in this proceeding.”

“it is clear that said resolution does not purport to confer the power to adjudicate title.”

“The resolution or rule complained of was but a formal direction enforcing just that procedure—no more, no less.”

STURTEVANT, J.

The petitioner applied to the trial court for a writ of review. The respondents appeared and filed a general demurrer. The trial court sustained the de

[665]

murrer without leave to amend. From the judgment entered the petitioner has appealed.

The material facts alleged in the petition include the following: The petitioner is and for some years has been engaged in conducting a second-hand store in which he buys and sells second-hand wearing apparel. He obtained a permit from the Police Commission of San Francisco to conduct said business and a license was issued to him by the tax collector. The respondent William J. Quinn is Chief of Police and Theodore J. Roche, Thomas B. Shumate and Frank J. Foran constitute the Police Commission of San Francisco. James C. Malloy is a lieutenant of police and George Stallard is an inspector. On September 9, 1933, petitioner purchased from V. Booth one suit of clothes and one leather jacket and paid therefor $7. At the time of the purchase “ . . . petitioner believed that the said V. Booth was the owner of and entitled to sell said property”. On January 26, 1914, the Police Commission adopted a resolution as follows:

“Resolved, that in all cases where a claim is made to property pawned with or sold to a Pawnbroker, Second Hand Dealer or Junk Dealer by a person claiming to be the owner thereof and asserting that the property was stolen, the validity of such claim shall be determined by the Chief of Police, or such other member of this department as shall be hereafter designated by this board. In the event said Chief or such other designated member shall determine that such property was stolen and that the claimant is the true owner thereof and that no collusion exists between such owner and the person or persons by whom such property was stolen, he shall direct that such stolen property be returned to the said owner without compensation of any kind being paid therefor. In the event such direction shall be refused, the permit under which such pawnbroker, second hand dealer or junk dealer is permitted to conduct his said business shall be subject to revocation;

“Further resolved, that no member of this department shall advise the payment by such owner of any compensation to such pawnbroker, second hand dealer or junk dealer for the return to him of any property claimed to have been stolen. ’ ’

Willer v. Quinn

AI Brief

STURTEVANT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief