Brooks v. Fischer
Before: Works
Synopsis
Constitutional Law—Municipal Corporations—Los Angeles Charter — Joint Resolution op Legislature.—Under section 8 of article 11 of the constitution, a city charter may be approved by a majority vote of the members elected to each house of the legislature, without the concurrence of the governor. The approval of the charter of Los Angeles by a joint resolution of both houses of the legislature was sufficient to give it validity, without the enactment of a bill to be approved by the governor. •
Id. —Legislature. —The legislature is not synonymous with the law-making power, and does not include the governor, except as applied to the enactment of laws. The legislature, as a distinct body, consists of the senate and assembly, and is empowered by the constitution to act as a distinct body, with reference to the approval of city charters.
Id.—Municipal Charter — Conflict with General Laws.—Under the constitution, the charter to be framed for a city government must be consistent with the constitution and with the general laws of the state. But the whole charter cannot be held invalid because a few of its provisions may be inconsistent with general statutes in force at the time of its adoption.
Works, J. This is a petition for a writ of prohibition to prevent the defendant from proceeding to act as assessor of the city of Los Angeles. The petition alleges, among other things:—
“1. That on the twentieth day of October, 1888, the qualified electors of said city ratified a charter for the government of said city, framed as provided by section 8, article 2, of the. constitution of the state of California, and thereafter, to wit, on the -day of-, 1889, a resolution was introduced in the senate of the state of California (the legislature being then in session), entitled ‘ Senate Joint Resolution No. 2,’ purporting to be a resolution approving the aforesaid charter; that a majority of the members elected to the senate, and a majority of the members elected to the assembly, voted in favor of said resolution on the twenty-third day of January, 1889.
“2. Said charter was never submitted to the legislature of the state of California for its approval or rejection, as provided by section 8 of article 2 of the constitution; that neither the said resolution nor the said charter was ever read on three several days in each house, nor was [175]either declared a case of urgency; that neither said resolution nor said charter was ever presented to the governor of the state of California for his approval or rejection, nor were they, or either of them, signed or approved by said governor.
“3. That the powers and duties of the city assessor in relation to the assessment of property prescribed by the laws existing prior to the framing of the aforesaid charter, were other than and essentially different from the powers and duties provided in said aforesaid charter.
“4. That notwithstanding that said charter has never been submitted to the legislature for its approval or rejection, and never presented to and signed and approved by the governor, the said defendant, as city assessor, without and in excess of the duties and powers conferred by prior laws, threatens and is now proceeding to assess all taxable property in said city, according to and by virtue of the provisions of said charter, and not otherwise, and particularly the property of your petitioner, notwithstanding his attention has been called to excess of jurisdiction.”
The prayer of the petition “is for an alternative writ of prohibition commanding the defendant to refrain from further proceedings in the matter specified herein until the further order of the court, and to show cause before this court, at a time and place specified in the writ, why he should not be absolutely restrained from any further proceedings in said matter.”
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)