Cole v. Board of Supervisors (1915) · DecisionDepot

Cole v. Board of Supervisors

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

California Court of Appeal Jun 2, 1915 No. Civ. No. 1555.Published

Before: Shaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the petition for a writ of certiorari failed to state sufficient facts to challenge the board of supervisors' incorporation of the city, as the board acted within its jurisdiction and the alleged procedural errors were not subject to review.

Issues

Whether a notice of petition for incorporation is invalid if the day of the week does not correspond to the day of the month.
Whether the presentation of a petition at an adjourned meeting constitutes a valid presentation.
Whether alleged procedural irregularities in the incorporation process are reviewable via a writ of certiorari.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Where the day of the week named in a notice does not correspond with the day of the month specified therein, the latter controls, and the day of the week may be discarded as surplusage.”

“The adjourned meeting held was but a continuance of the regular meeting and, in the absence of any order to the contrary, carried over to such time for further hearing unfinished business pending before the board.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County. Z. B. West, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

[530]

SHAW, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon the sustaining of a demurrer to a petition for a writ of

certiorari

whereby it was sought to annul an order of the board of supervisors of Orange County incorporating the city of Stanton as a city of the sixth class.

The demurrer interposed was both general and special. Since we are of the opinion that the demurrer was properly sustained upon the ground that the petition failed to state facts sufficient to entitle the petitioner to a writ of review, it is unnecessary to consider the special grounds upon which the demurrer is based.

Petitioner contends that by reason of a failure on the part of the board of supervisors to comply with the provisions of an act of the legislature entitled, “An act to provide for the organization, incorporation, and government of municipal corporations” (Stats. 1883, p. 93), and amendments thereto, respondent did not acquire jurisdiction to make the order. One of the grounds for such contention is that in publishing the petition for an order incorporating the city, as required by section 2 of said act, the notice published therewith stated that such petition would be presented to the board on

Tuesday,

April 5th; that the day of the week corresponding with April 5th was Wednesday. Notwithstanding this inconsistency, we think the notice was sufficient. Where a notice specifies the day of the month for the doing of an act as to which the notice is given, no purpose is served by naming therein the day of the week corresponding to such day of the month. “Date” means the year, the month and the day thereof, and thus stated it is definite, certain, and complete. Not necessarily so, however, where the day of the week and month are given, since there may be several such days in the ■month. Where the day of the week named in a notice does not correspond with the day of the month specified therein, the latter controls, and the day of the week may be discarded as surplusage.

(Ingersoll

Kirby,

Cole v. Board of Supervisors

AI Brief

Synopsis

SHAW, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief