In Re Shafter-Wasco Irr. Dist.

California Court of Appeal Nov 9, 1942 No. Civ. No. 3069Published

Before: Marks

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The statutory requirement that an appeal in an irrigation district dissolution proceeding be heard and determined within three months is directory rather than mandatory, as a literal interpretation would constitute an unconstitutional interference with the appellate court's jurisdiction.

Issues

May the Legislature divest an appellate court of its constitutional jurisdiction by imposing a time limit for deciding an appeal that is impracticable to meet?
Is the statutory provision requiring an appeal to be heard and determined within three months mandatory or directory?

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We therefore conclude that the quoted sentence of the act is directory and was intended to give this appeal as early a hearing and decision as orderly procedure in this court will permit.”

“It is equally true that those constitutional powers may not be so restricted by unreasonable rules as to virtually nullify them.”

55 Cal.App.2d 484 (1942) In re SHAFTER-WASCO IRRIGATION DISTRICT on Dissolution. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SHAFTER-WASCO IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Appellant,

CHARLES WESTENBERG et al., Respondents.

Civ. No. 3069. California Court of Appeals. Fourth Dist.

Nov. 9, 1942. H. E. Schmidt and Ernest H. Tuttle for Appellant.

Maddox & Abercrombie for Respondents.

MARKS, J.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal of the Shafter-Wasco Irrigation District (hereinafter called the district) from a judgment refusing to confirm the dissolution proceedings of the district. The motion is made upon the ground that the time fixed by statute for the hearing and determination of the appeal has expired and that this court has lost jurisdiction to hear and determine the same.

The district was duly organized and is existing under the laws of the state. It took proceedings for its voluntary dissolution under an act entitled "An act to provide for the dissolution of irrigation districts, the ascertainment and discharge of their indebtedness, and the distribution of their property." (Stats. 1903, p. 3, as amended; Deering's Gen. Laws, 1937, Act 3876.) We will hereinafter refer to this legislation as the act.

After taking proceedings for its dissolution under the prior sections of the act, the district filed its petition in the Superior Court of Kern County, being the county in which it is located, to determine the validity of the proceedings and plan for dissolution. Respondents appeared and contested the proceedings and judgment went against the district. The appeal followed.

The last two sentences of section 4 of the act, under which section the proceedings in the court below were had, provide as follows: [486]

"Such action shall be speedily tried and judgment rendered. Either party shall have the right to appeal at any time within thirty days after the entering of such judgment, and the appeal must be heard and determined within three months after the taking of such appeal."

In Re Shafter-Wasco Irr. Dist.

AI Brief

MARKS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief