Beaumont v. Samson (1907) · DecisionDepot

Beaumont v. Samson

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal May 2, 1907 No. Civ. No. 325.Published

Before: Chipman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that certiorari is not the appropriate remedy to challenge the validity of a municipal corporation's existence or the right of its officers to hold office, as quo warranto provides a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy for such purposes.

Issues

Whether certiorari is the proper remedy to challenge the validity of a municipal corporation's incorporation proceedings.
Whether the validity of a de facto corporation and the right of its officers to exercise functions can be determined via writ of review.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“it is contended by respondents that plaintiff had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy by quo warranto and that this latter, and not certiorari, is the appropriate remedy”

“For the purpose of determining such questions, the proper remedy is by scire facias or quo warranto, so that the corporation may be in court.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tehama County, and from an order dismissing a proceeding upon writ of review. John F. Ellison, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

CHIPMAN, C.

Certiorari. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the superior court of Tehama county denying plaintiff’s application for a writ of review and dismissing the proceedings therein.

Proceedings were taken before the board of supervisors of said county, which resulted in an order of said board declaring the territory in said order described to be “duly incorporated as a municipal corporation of the sixth class, under the name and style of the Town of Corning.” The purpose of the action is to set aside, vacate and annul all of said proceedings and to obtain a decree that said incorporation is invalid.

Several questions arising in the case have been discussed, and among others it is contended by respondents that plaintiff had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy by

quo warranto

and that this latter, and not

certiorari,

is the appropriate remedy, and it was so held by the learned trial judge. We

[492]

think the point well taken, and this makes it unnecessary to notice other questions.

It appeared that pursuant to the order of the board, the persons named as trustees of said town of Corning entered upon the discharge of their duties, and were so acting at the commencement of this action. Whether or not a

de jure

corporation, the officers elected to exercise its powers and functions assumed to act under the authority conferred by the proceedings taken by the board of supervisors, and we think the organization constituted a

de facto

corporation. The good faith of these officers in so acting is not called in question, nor is it disputed that they were acting under the authority supposed by them to be conferred by the proceedings leading up to the formation of an assumed valid and legal corporation. At most, the acts of these trustees constituted a usurpation of, or an intrusion into, a public office, and their authority so to do, it seems to us, cannot be properly determined otherwise than by the method pointed out in section 803 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, commonly called proceedings by

Beaumont v. Samson

AI Brief

Synopsis

CHIPMAN, C.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief