Humboldt Cty. v. Dinsmore

California Supreme Court Apr 26, 1888 No. No. 11342Published

Before: Foote

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the board of supervisors' determinations regarding the sufficiency of road petitions and viewer reports are judicial in nature and conclusive when made within their jurisdiction. Consequently, the board's orders are not subject to collateral attack in condemnation proceedings.

Issues

Whether a road petition must affirmatively allege that signers are freeholders of the road district.
Whether the board of supervisors' order appointing viewers is conclusive evidence of the board's jurisdiction.
Whether the board of supervisors has the discretion to establish a road width of sixty feet.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“An inferior board may determine conclusively its own jurisdiction or power by adjudicating the existence, of facts upon the existence of which its jurisdiction or power depends.”

“It has been held that the board of supervisors, in determining matters of this kind, exercise judicial functions.”

“The sufficiency of that evidence was concluded by the judgment, which cannot be assailed collaterally.”

Synopsis

Public Road—Petition — Freeholders.—Under section 2682 of the Political Code, a petition for the constrnction of a public road need not allege that the petitioners are freeholders of the road district wherein the proposed road is to he constructed, and taxable therein for road purposes.

Id.—Road District—Judicial Notice of Location.—The courts will take judicial notice that a road district alleged to be in Humboldt County is in the state of California.

Id. —Approval of Bond. —An order of the hoard of supervisors, recognizing the petition for the construction of the road and the accompanying bond as being such as is required by law, and ordering viewers to be appointed, is sufficient evidence of an approval of the bond by the hoard.

Id, — Order for View — Presumptions.—In the absence of affirmative proof to the contrary, it will be presumed, in support of an order appointing viewers, that the board of supervisors determined the fact that the petition was presented and signed by at least ten freeholders of the road district taxable therein for road purposes, that one of the viewers is a surveyor, and that all of the viewers are disinterested citizens of the county, and not petitioners.

Id.—Notice to Land-owner.—Under section 2685 of the Political Code, the notice required to be given by the viewers to the owner of the land over which the road passes, of the proposed route, need not be in writing.

Id. —Report of Viewers. •—Under section 2686 of the Political Code, the viewers are not required to state in their report as a fact that they have ascertained the necessity for the road, or that the same should be opened.

Id. —Survey of Road. —The survey of the road need not appear upon the records of the board of supervisors.

Id. —Approval of Report of Viewers. —The order of the board of supervisors approving the report of the viewers cannot be collaterally attacked on the ground that it was made upon insufficient evidence.

Id, — Width of Road.—Under section 2681 of the Political Code, the board of supervisors has discretion to make the road sixty feet wide.

Foote, C. This action was instituted under title 7 (seven) of part 3 (three) of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the condemnation of a strip of land belonging to Dinsmore, the appellant, alleged to be necessary for and to be used as a public highway.

Judgment was made and entered for the plaintiff, and from that, and an order refusing him a new trial, the defendant has appealed, the case coming here upon the judgment roll and a bill of exceptions.

It is claimed that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the petition for the road,—

1. Because it did not show that the proposed road was in the road district in which the petitioners reside, or that it was in the state 'of California;

2. That it did not describe particularly the road to be constructed, but only a surveyed line over the general route thereof;

3. That the petition does not show over what land the proposed road will run.

In this connection, it may be stated that on the trial it was admitted by the appellant that the persons who signed the petition were freeholders within road district Ho. 6.

[606]Section 2682 of the Political Code, which defines what must he the character of such a petition, is in this language:—

“Petition must set forth and describe particularly the road to be abandoned, discontinued, altered, or constructed, and if the road is to be altered, laid out, or constructed, the general route thereof, over what lands, who the owners thereof aro, whether such of them as can be found consent thereto, and if not, the probable cost of the right of way where such consent is not had, the necessity for and the advantages of the proposed road.”

It will be perceived at a glance that the requirements for a proper petition under the statute do not include an allegation that the signing petitioners are ten freeholders of the road district, and taxable therein for road purposes, wherein the proposed road is to be constructed. This was something, therefore, which the board had the jurisdiction to determine as a fact on the hearing of the matter, from the evidence before them, irrespective of the question as to what the petition may have averred. For this reason the first objection to the introduction of the petition is untenable.

Humboldt Cty. v. Dinsmore

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief