Hutson v. Woodbridge Protection District No. 1
Before: Thornton
Synopsis
Constitutional Law—Due Process of Law—Assessment to Protect Lands from Overflow.—The act of April 15, 1880, “to provide for the protection of lands from overflow, other than lands recognized as swamp lands,” is unconstitutional in so far as it provides for making assessments therefor a charge upon the lands benefited, and for sale of the assessed lands to pay such assessments, for the reason that the act provides no opportunity for a hearing of the land-owner in regard to the assessment, but makes the assessment an absolute lien upon the propl erty, and provides for a summary sale thereof to pay the assessment, without any suit or opportunity of defense to the land-owner, and so would deprive him of his property without due process of law.
The Court. The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Department Two, which opinion is approved and adopted as the opinion of the court in Bank.
The following is the opinion of Department Two above referred to, rendered on the 14th of February, 1888:—
Thornton, J. This action involves the constitution, ■ality of certain provisions of the act of April 15, 1880, [92]entitled “An act to provide for the protection of lands from overflow, other than lands recognized as swamp lands.” (See Stats. 1880, p. 55.)
The work to be done under the act for protecting land from overflow is to be paid for by assessments on the lands included within a certain district to be constituted in the mode provided for in the first, second, and third sections of the act.
Three trustees of the district are to be elected, who are to be notified of their election. (See sec. 3.)
The act further provides that within twenty days after the trustees are notified of their election, they shall meet and organize as a board, by the election from their number of a chairman and secretary, and enter upon the discharge of their duties. This board is to have charge of all the works of protection, and shall superintend the construction or repair of the same, and shall have power to do all other acts necessary for the accomplishment of the objects for which the district was organized. The board is empowered to employ competent engineers, and is required to proceed to survey, mark out, and locate the necessary work of protection for the district, to provide plans and specifications for the same, and estimates of the cost of construction, and submit the same to the board of supervisors by whom the district was formed, for their approval, modification, or rejection. (See sec. 4.)
The fifth and sixth sections are as follows:—
“Sec. 5. Upon the adoption of a plan of protection, said board of supervisors shall appoint three disinterested persons, residing in any county in which some part of the district is situated, as commissioners, who shall, on being notified in writing of their appointment by the clerk of the board of supervisors, proceed to view each forty-acre tract or fraction thereof, and each town lot or parcel of land within the district, and levy and fix against each such sum for protection purposes in proper
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)