Koppikus v. State Capitol Comm'rs
Before: Field
Synopsis
The Act of March 29th, 1860, providing for the construction of a State Capitol in the city of Sacramento, is not unconstitutional, as creating an indebtedness or liability on the part of the State exceeding the limit of $300,000, prescribed in the eighth article of the Constitution. The Act authorizes the Commissioners therein named to contract only to the extent of $100,000.
No analogy exists between this case and Nougues v. Douglass, (7 Cal. 65) because there the Act of 1856 authorized a contract in a sum not exceeding $300,000, payable in State bonds, and at the time of its passage the State was indebted to the amount limited by the Constitution, without a vote of the people.
Nor is the Act of 1860 unconstitutional, because it provides that the compensation to the owners of the land taken shall be ascertained by three Commissioners, and thus deprives the owners of the right to a jury trial. The provision of the Constitution, that “ the right of trial by jury shall be secured to all, and remain inviolate forever,” applies only to civil and criminal cases in which an issue of fact is joined. The proceeding to ascertain the value of property, under the Act of 1860, and the compensation to be made, is not an action at law. It is an inquisition for the ascertainment of a particular fact, as preliminary to future proceedings, and it is only requisite that it be conducted in some equitable and fair mode, to be provided by law, either with or without a jury, opportunity being allowed to owners and parties interested in the property to give evidence as to its value, and to be heard thereon.
The language of the Constitution as to the right of trial by jury, was used with reference to the right as it exists at common law. This right of trial by jury cannot be claimed in equity cases, unless an issue of fact be framed for the jury, under the direction of the Court.
In this case, the District Judge did not err in refusing the application to set aside the award of the Commissioners, and for a new trial. The proceedings before the Commissioners were regular, and “ appear to have been done in good faith,” within the act.
Field, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court Baldwin, J. and Cope, J. concurring.
The plaintiff in error bases his objections to the action of the District Judge upon the alleged unconstitutionality of the Act of March 29 th, 1860, providing for the construction of the State Capitol in the city of Sacramento, and the alleged error of the Judge, in his refusal to set aside the award of the Commissioners, fixing the compensation to be made to the plaintiff, as owner of a parcel of the land intended for the site of the capítol.
[2531]. The unconstitutionality of the act is asserted on two grounds: first, that it creates an indebtedness or liability on the part of the State exceeding the limit of $300,000, prescribed by the eighth article of the Constitution ; and, second, that it provides that the compensation to the owners of the property taken shall be ascertained by three Commissioners, and thus deprives the owners of the right to a trial by jury.
The act provides, that the entire cost of the capital shall not exceed $500,000, and it is hence inferred, that the Commissioners are authorized to contract for a building requiring an expenditure of that amount; but the inference is not warranted. The Legislature undoubtedly intended by the provision to indicate the amount within which the work is to be constructed, and to furnish, in some respect, a guide to the Commissioners in the adoption of a plan for the building; but the provision does not authorize any contract, by which a debt or liability to that amount against the State can be created. The Commissioners are only authorized to contract to the extent of $100,000; though a plan be adopted by them which may require, in its execution, the half million designated. For the liabilities which may be thus incurred, the act makes provision; it appropriates, for that purpose, the requisite sum, thus anticipating their existence, and discharging them as they arise. (See State v. McCauley and Tevis, 15 Cal. 429.) Before any greater liabilities can be created, further legislation must be had.
It will be thus seen that there is no analogy between this case and the case of Nougues v. Douglass et al., (7 Cal. 65) cited by the plaintiff in error. The Act of 1856, considered in the latter case, authorized a contract for the construction of a capital for a sum not exceeding $300,000, and provided that the payments should be made in bonds of the State, redeemable in thirty years; and at the time of its passage, the State was indebted to the amount limited by the Constitution without a vote of the people.
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)