Mills v. Houck

California Court of Appeal May 31, 1932 No. Docket No. 7087.Published

Before: Houser, York, Conrey

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a judgment against a city for costs and expenses incurred by a property owner following the city's abandonment of eminent domain proceedings is a liability imposed by law, not a contractual debt, and therefore is not subject to the constitutional debt limitation of Article XI, Section 18.

Issues

Whether a judgment for costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1255a constitutes a liability 'incurred' by a municipality within the meaning of Article XI, Section 18 of the California Constitution.
Whether the constitutional debt limitation applies to involuntary liabilities imposed by statute rather than those arising from contract.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the liability so created is in the nature of a penalty imposed by law— fixed by statute-—and therefore not controlled by section 18, article XI, of the Constitution.”

“The liability to pay costs is not caused by the direct act of the city in incurring a debt or a liability, but is a mere incident fixed by law”

“Undoubtedly, payment of costs in an action of this kind is a liability fixed by statute, regardless of the fact that it is incurred by an individual, a private corporation or a public corporation.”

Opinion — York

YORK, J.

The plaintiff petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandate to compel the city council of the city of

[2]

Culver City to include in the tax levy for the fiscal year of 1930-1931, a rate or sum sufficient to pay plaintiff’s judgment against the city of Culver City, in the sum of $2,753.50, with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from June 18, 1928, or in lieu thereof, a rate or sum sufficient to pay at least one-tenth of the whole amount of said judgment, interest and costs, and to so levy a tax in each succeeding year until the whole amount of judgment be paid. The writ was granted in accordance with said prayer.

As set forth in appellants’ opening brief, the city of Culver City took all the necessary steps to institute eminent domain proceedings against certain property in the said city to be used for street purposes. The action was duly filed wherein plaintiffs herein were defendants. Subsequently, the eminent domain proceeding was dismissed and the proceedings were abandoned. Thereafter, judgment was rendered in favor of H. C. Mills, the plaintiff and respondent here, for the sum of $2,753.50, under the provisions of section 1255a of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the city council of the said city of Culver City refused to provide for payment of the judgment, whereupon the present

mandamos

action was instituted.

As stated by appellants, the sole question on this appeal is whether the city of Culver City is precluded from paying the said judgment, due to the inhibition of section 18, article XI, of the Constitution of the state of California, which reads as follows: “No county, city, town, township, board of education, or school district, shall incur any indebtedness or liability in any manner or for any purpose exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided for such year, without the assent of two-thirds of the qualified electors thereof, voting at an election to be held for that purpose. ...” Appellants concede that the inhibition of this constitutional provision does not apply to indebtedness involuntarily incurred by a municipal corporation.

Mills v. Houck

AI Brief

Opinion — York

YORK, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

Dissent — Houser

HOUSER, J.

Concurrence — Conrey

AI Brief