People ex rel. Boardman v. Town of Linden
Before: Beatty
Synopsis
Municipal Corporations — Validity of Organization — Substantial Compliance with Statute — Quo Warranto.—While substantial compliance with the statute in the organization of a municipal corporation is sufficient, yet, where any important provisions of the law have been violated or ignored, the corporation may be annulled at suit of the people in an action of quo warranto.
Id.-—Time of Presenting Petition—Publication of Notice—Construction of Statute.—The proper construction of section 2 of the statute of 1883, as amended in 1889, respecting the formation of municipal corporations, does not require that the. petition describing the territory to be incorporated, and signed by at least fifty qualified electors of the county, resident within the limits of such territory, should be presented to the board in the first place before the publication of notice; but it is only required to be presented to the board of supervisors after two weeks’ notice by publication of the time when it will be presented.
Id.—Insufficient Affidavit to Petition—Genuineness of Signatures. An affidavit attached to a petition for the organization of a municipal corporation which merely shows that the names attached to the petition were names of qualified electors, resident within the limits of the proposed corporation, but which does not show that their signatures were genuine, is radically defective; and if it does not appear that there was any evidence offered before the board of supervisors, or before the court, of the genuineness of the signatures other than the affidavit attached to the petition, there is no evidence to sustain a finding that the petition was in fact signed by fifty qualified petitioners, and there was a failure, in a substantial particular, to comply with the statute.
Id.—Jurisdiction of Board to Establish Corporation.—It is absolutely essential to the jurisdiction of the board to make an order declaring the establishment of the corporation that a proper petition, signed by the requisite number of qualified petitioners, should be laid before them, involving proof of the genuineness of the signatures attached to the petition, and filed with it; and where no evidence was placed before the supervisors of the genuineness of the signatures of a sufficient number of qualified petitioners, and there is no finding or declaration of that fact by the board, it had no jurisdiction to declare the establishment of the corporation.
Id.—Loss of Jurisdiction—Adjournments of Hearing—Hours not Specified.—If the board of supervisors has acquired jurisdiction of a proceeding to establish a proposed municipal corporation it does not lose it by adjournments of the hearing from time to time merely because in the orders of adjournment the hour of the day for resuming the hearing was not specified.
Beatty, C. J. By virtue of certain proceedings under the general law providing for the organization, incorporation, and government of municipal corporations (Stats. of 1883, p. 93), the defendant is assuming and claiming to be a municipal corporation of the sixth class, and this action was brought for the purpose of determining its right to hold and enjoy the franchise, and to exercise the powers of such a corporation.
The plaintiff claimed that, by reason of the failure of the board of supervisors to comply with the statute, no organization was ever effected. The defendant claimed that there had been a substantial and sufficient compliance with the law on the part of the board, and of all parties concerned. A trial was held in the superior court, and judgment given in favor of the defendant affirming the validity of its incorporation. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment and from an order overruling their motion for a new trial. In support of their appeal they specify various particulars in which, as they claim, the proceedings looking to the incorporation of the defendant fell short of the statutory requirements.
There seems to be no difference between counsel as to the proposition that a substantial compliance with the statute is sufficient, but it is contended that positive and [98]important provisions of the law have in this instance been violated or ignored.
Most, if not all, of the questions to be decided depend for their solution upon the proper construction of section 2 of the act above cited, as amended in 1889 (Stats. 1889, p. 371).
1. It is therein provided, amongst other things, that a petition describing the territory to be incorporated, and signed by at least fifty qualified electors of the county, resident within the limits of said territory, shall be presented to the board of supervisors after two weeks’ notice by publication of the time when it will be presented. Appellant claims that such petition must be presented to the board in the first place before publication of notice, and must be .thereafter published with the notice, affidavit, etc., by order and under the official sanction of the board, for the requisite time before it is presented to the board for its further action. We think, however, that a proper construction of the statute warrants the course pursued by the petitioners in this instance, who themselves caused the publication of the petition, affidavit, and notice of the time when the petition wras presented to the board.
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)