Appeal of S. O. Houghton
Before: Crockett, Rhodes, Sprague, Temple, Wallace
Synopsis
Bulbs fob Construing Statutes as to Appeals.—If a statute is capable of being so construed as to maintain the right of appeal without violating the well established rules for construing statutes, it will be so construed.
Bule as to Meaning of Words.-—In construing statutes, words are to be taken in their usual and popular sense, unless they have a well understood technical meaning; and, if practicable, effect shall be given to all the words and provisions of the statute.
Construction of Acts of 1868 and 1870 relative to Streets in San Francisco.—The Acts of 1868 and 1870, to modify the grades of streets in San Francisco, in declaring that the judgment of the County Court on the second report of the Commissioners shall be “final and conclusive,” means that there shall be no appeal from the judgment, and that it shall not be reviewed by the County Court, except by motion for a new trial.
Same—Constitution Construed—Mature of Proceeding.—The proceeding under the Acts of 1868 and 1870, modifying grades of streets in San Francisco, is a special one, and not a case at law involving the legality of an assessment, in the sense of Article VI, section four, of the Constitution. If it were a case at law, it would not be competent for the Legislature to confer jurisdiction of it upon the County Court, because the Constitution, in express terms, confers upon the District Court original jurisdiction in that class of cases; and such jurisdiction is exclusive, unless there be something in the instrument evincing a contrary intent.
Bemedy for Damages.—The only remedy for property owners who have suffered damage under the Acts of 1868 and 1870, relative to modifying grades of streets in San Francisco, is by application to the Legislature for relief.
By WALLACE, J.:
Appeal, the Creature of Statutory Enactment.—Independently of rules adopted by the Supreme Court, an appeal as a mere procedure is defined by statute. It is essentially the creature of the statute, and may be accorded or withheld, restrained, enlarged, or wholly abrogated, by legislative enactment.
Benefit of Appeal not Secured by the Constitution—Supreme Court Bules.—The Constitution has not undertaken to define -or secure the benefit of an appeal to any person against the legislative control. It has left that subject wholly to the Legislature, or, in default of legislative enactment, to the Supreme Court, through rules adopted for that purpose.
Jurisdiction of Supreme Court over Appeals.—The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court ekists, and is capable of effective assertion, independently of legislative aid, as to the procedure through which an appeal is to be exerted.
Appeal must be Authorized by Statute or Rule.—Ho appeal of a particular class or character can be entertained by the Supreme Court, unless authorized by a statute, or a rule of Court, even though such cases be in themselves within the appellate jurisdiction of the Court, as defined by the Constitution.
Opinion — Crockett
By the Court, Crockett, J.: The motion to dismiss the appeal in this case must be controlled in its decision by a solution of the following questions:
First—Does the special Act of February 1st, 1870 (Stats. 1869-70, p. 41), by necessary implication, or reasonable intendment, prohibit an appeal in this case?
Second—If not, does section three hundred and fifty-nine of the code authorize an appeal in this class of cases ?
If the first question shall be answered in the affirmative, it may be necessary to consider the further question, whether the Constitution has conferred upon this Court appellate jurisdiction in cases of this character, in which event the Legislature would not have the power to take it away, or to prohibit us from exercising it.
In considering the first question it is our duty so to inter[52]pret the Act of February 1st, 1870, if practicable, as to uphold the right of appeal; for it is not lightly to be assumed that the Legislature intended to deny a right of appeal in a ease involving so large an amount and affecting the interests of so many persons. If, therefore, the statute is capable of being so construed as to maintain the right of appeal without violating the well established rules for construing statutes, I should deem it to be my duty to give it that construction.
On the other hand, if the Legislature has clearly expressed its intention that there shall be no appeal in this case, the Courts have no right to defeat this manifest intention by torturing or disregarding the language of the statute. One of the rules for construing statutes is, that the words are to be taken in their usual and popular sense, unless they have a well understood technical meaning; and another rule is, that, if practicable, effect shall be given to all the words and provisions of the statute.
It is not to be presumed that the Legislature employed language which was intended to be meaningless, and to perform no useful office. Section thirteen of the Act under consideration, after providing for a, publication of notice of the filing of the report of the Commissioners, provides that within twenty days after the publication of the notice, any person interested may file in the County Court objections to the report; and if no such objections are filed within that period, the report “ shall be final and conclusive on all parties interested; and all assessments made and set forth in said report shall be a lien upon the respective parcels of land and property in said district upon which said assessments are charged by said report.”
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)