Kimball v. Board of Supervisors of Alameda County

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1873 No. No. 3,051Published

Before: Crockett

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a Board of Supervisors has jurisdiction to open public highways and that a landowner's appearance in such proceedings waives the requirement for formal notice. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the legislature may constitutionally authorize Boards of Supervisors to assess damages for land taken for public use.

Issues

Whether the failure to serve notice on a landowner invalidates the Board's jurisdiction when that party appeared voluntarily.
Whether the assessment of damages by a Board of Supervisors violates the constitutional requirement of due process.
Whether the Act of 1862 remained in force despite subsequent amendments.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“His appearance dispensed with the necessity for the notice, and all the other parties in interest were duly served.”

“It is competent for the Legislature to fix the mode of condemnation, the method by which the damages to individuals shall be determined and the proceedings for their recovery.”

“We consider it as no longer an open question in this State whether Boards of Supervisors may exercise jurisdiction in opening public highways across public lands.”

Synopsis

Appearance a Waiver op Notice.—In proceedings by a Board of Supervisors to take private land for a public highway, an appearance before the Board of one of the persons whose land is about to be taken, is a waiver of service of notice upon such person.

Power op Supervisors in Opening Roads.—Boards of Supervisors, if authorized by law, may exercise the judicial powers necessary to be called into exercise in talcing private lands for public highways, and the exercise of such power is not repugnant to that clause in the Constitution which declares that private property shall not be taken for public use without due process of law.

Amendment to Section op an Act.—If a section of an Act is amended and published at length in a subsequent Act, and the original section is again amended and published at length in a still later Act, which repeals the first amendatory Act, the last Act is only an amendment of the original section, although it does not refer to the first amendatory Act except in the repealing clause.

By the Court, Crockett, J.: This is an action to enjoin the Board of Supervisors from opening a road in Alameda County; and there are annexed to the complaint copies of all the proceedings had before the Board. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and a final judgment entered for the defendants, from which the plaintiff appeals.

[23]The first point made by the appellant is, that one of the parties over whose land the proposed road was to pass was not served with a notice of the intended application, as required by the statute, and it is contended that the Board acquired no jurisdiction of the proceeding, unless all the land owners were served. But a conclusive answer to this point is, that the omitted party appeared to the proceeding, and raised no objection for want of notice. His appearance dispensed with the necessity for the notice, and all the other parties in interest were duly served.

The next point made by the appellant is, that the statute which authorizes the Board of Supervisors to assess the damages on the opening of a highway violates that clause of the Constitution which provides that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law; and it it; claimed that a judgment of the Board of Supervisors is not due process of law in the sense of the Constitution. But as early as the case of the People v. Board of Supervisors of El Dorado, 8 Cal. 58, it was decided that the Boards of Supervisors in this State may exercise judicial powers in certain classes of cases; and this ruling has been steadily adhered to ever since. In Lincoln v. Colusa County, 28 Cal. 662, the action was against the.county for damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the opening across his land of a public highway by the Board of Supervisors; and this Court says: “under the Constitution private property cannot be taken for public use except upon compensation made. It is competent for the Legislature to fix the mode of condemnation, the method by which the damages to individuals shall be determined and the proceedings for their recovery. ” This power has been freely exercised in relation to lands taken for public highways under the Act, of 1861.

It has been repeatedly decided that Boards of Supervisors have jurisdiction over roads, ferries, and bridges within their [24]

Kimball v. Board of Supervisors of Alameda County

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief