Chinn v. Superior Court of San Joaquin Cty.
Before: Lorigan
Synopsis
Jurisdiction of Courts—Constitutional Limitations.—Where the judicial power of courts, either original or appellate, is fixed by constitutional provisions, the legislature cannot either limit or extend that jurisdiction.
Id.—Appellate Jurisdiction of Superior Court—Inferior Courts.—Section 5 of article VI of the constitution expressly limits the appellate jurisdiction of the superior courts, as to the character of the tribunals whose proceedings may be reviewed, to eases of appeals from “justices” or “inferior courts” only, and the legislature has no power to enlarge the tribunals from which appeals to the superior court may be taken.
Id.—Board of Supervisors—Judicial Functions.—The fact that a board of supervisors may exercise judicial functions does not make it an inferior court within the meaning of that term as employed in the constitution relative to the appellate jurisdiction of the superior courts.
Id.—Inferior Courts Defined.—The term “inferior courts” has a well-recognized meaning. They are courts established for the administration of justice, charged with the exercise of judicial power as a substantive duty, but with limited jurisdiction in that regard, and that jurisdiction usually confined to the limits of the city or town for which they are mainly created. Police courts, municipal courts, and recorders’ courts are examples of such courts, and they are the character of courts to which the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court is limited.
Id.—Order of Supervisors Establishing Irrigation District—Appeal from to Superior Court.—Section 4 of the act of 1897 for. the formation of irrigation districts (Stats. 1897, p. 254), providing for an appeal directly to the superior court of the county from an order of the board of supervisors granting an application for the formation of such a district, is unconstitutional and void.
LORIGAN, J.
This is an original petition for a writ of mandate.
It appears from the petition for the writ that P. E. Lindstrom and others made application to the board of supervisors of San Joaquin County for the formation of an irrigation district in said county to be known as “The South San Joaquin Irrigation District.” The application was made under the provisions of the act of 1897 (Stats. 1897, p. 254, Gen. Laws, p. 501), and such proceedings were had in the matter that on March 22, 1909, an order granting the application for the formation of the district was made by the board, and the objections of the petitioners for this writ against the inclusion of their lands within said district were overruled.
[480]
Section 4 of the Irrigation Act provides for an appeal directly to the superior court of the county from such order of the board of supervisors, said appeal to be taken and heard in the same manner as appeals from the justice’s court to the superior court, with power conferred on the superior court to enter a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the order of the board of supervisors appealed from.
The present petitioners, being dissatisfied with the order made by the board of supervisors in the matter of the formation of said irrigation district, perfected an appeal to the superior court of San Joaquin County, in conformity to said section 4 of the act, and the matter coming up for hearing before said court the appeal was dismissed, the superior court holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain it for the reason that the provision of the act attempting to confer- appellate jurisdiction on the superior court, to entertain an appeal from the order of the board of supervisors, was unconstitutional and void.
The petitioners thereupon applied to this court for a writ of mandate to compel the respondent—the superior court of San Joaquin County—to proceed with a hearing and determination of said appeal. An alternative writ was issued, to which a demurrer was interposed, and the matter is submitted for decision on that demurrer.
It is provided by the constitution (art. VI, sec. 1) that the judicial power of the state shall be vested in the senate, in the supreme court, district courts of appeal, superior courts, justice of the peace, and “such inferior courts as the legislature may establish in any incorporated city or town, or city and county.” Section 5 of the same article, after declaring in what cases the superior court shall have original jurisdiction, provides that they “shall have appellate jurisdiction in such cases arising in justices’ and other inferior courts in their respective counties as may be prescribed by law.”
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)