People v. Ahern (1877) · DecisionDepot

People v. Ahern

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

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1877 No. No. 4966Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. An assessment is invalid where the commissioners failed to jointly view the land or meet together to perform the assessment, and the court found no evidence to support a contrary finding.

Issues

Whether the commissioners' assessment was valid despite their failure to jointly view the land or meet together.
Whether the Act of March 4th, 1874, legalized the assessment in question.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the evidence adduced by the plaintiff affirmatively shows that there was no viewing of the land by the Commissioners either jointly or severally, nor any joint assessment.”

“Such an assessment cannot be supported, either under the Act of March 28th, 1868, or the Political Code.”

Synopsis

Assessment oe Swamp Lands.—Commissioners appointed under the Act of March 24th, 1868, for the purpose of viewing and assessing swamp lands in order to reclaim the same, must jointly view and assess the same, or the assessment is void.

Idem.—Sec. 3456 of the Political Code does not change this rule.

Special Act op the Legislature.—The question not decided whether, when a swamp land district has been assessed under a general act for purposes of reclamation, a special act of the Legislature, legalizing an assessment made under the law, is constitutional.

No view at all was had of the lands by any of the Commissioners, and the three never met together for its approval. To call such a thing an “ assessment ” would be a perversion of the language ; and for the Legislature to attempt to legalize it would be an unwarrantable assumption of power, such as no reported case has yet been found to uphold. Retroactive legislation can only be sustained in aid of justice and right—never in aid of injustice and fraud. ( Conway v. Cable, 37 Bl. 82; White Mountain R. R. Co. v. White M. R. R. Co. of N. H. 50 N. H. 50; Cooley on Const. Lim. 379; People v. Goldtree, 44 Cal. 325.)

C. T. Jones, District Attorney, W. H. Patterson, and E. M. Martin, for Respondent.

By the Court : The Court finds that the .Commissioners “did view and jointly levy and assess,” etc.; but fails to find that they jointly viewed the land. On the motion for a new trial this finding was at[211]tacked on the ground that it was not justified by the evidence, and we think the evidence adduced by the plaintiff affirmatively shows that there was no viewing of the land by the Commissioners either jointly or severally, nor any joint assessment. If there was any evidence to support the finding, our attention has not been called to it by counsel. Such an assessment cannot be supported, either under the Act of March 28th, 1868, or the Political Code. (People v. Goghill, 47 Cal. 363; People v. Hagar, 49 Cal. 229; Political Code, sec. 3456.)

If it be conceded that special legislation like that contained in the Act of March 4th, 1874, (Stats. 1873-4, p. 273) in respect to a particular reclamation district, can be supported on constitutional grounds, (a point not necessary to be decided in this case) it is enough to say of this statute that it does not purport to legalize this assessment in this particular.

Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded for nevr trial.

People v. Ahern

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief