Brown v. Board of Supervisors

Certiorari—Office of AVrit.—The writ of certiorari can only issue to review the action of a hoard or inferior tribunal, when performed in the exercise of judicial functions, and in excess of its jurisdiction; and it cannot issue where the act complained of is merely legislative.

Id.—Legislative Act of Supervisors Relating to Streets—Discretionary Power.—The act of the board of supervisors in determining whether a street shall be opened or closed, or widened or contracted, or otherwise improved, is a legislative act, and the exercise of its judgment in determining what is to be done in the premises is but the exercise of a discretionary power intrusted to them as a legislative body, and is not the exercise of any judicial function, which may be reviewed upon certiorari.

Id.—Power to Diminish Width of Street.—The authority torcióse a street in whole or in part, conferred by the act of March 7, 1889, authorizes the board to diminish the width of the street, and the adoption of the order is a determination that it is required by the public interest or convenience.

Id.—Objections—Hearing Authorized, not Judicial—Ascertainment of Public Interest.—The hearing authorized by the statute to consider objections made to the improvement or change of a street is not judicial, but merely a mode of procedure for ascertaining the public interest, and its decision on that question is final and conclusive.

Id.—Closing up Part of Street—Question of Damage—Determination of Board not Subject of Certiorari.—In closing up the whole or '• part of a street, the necessity of an assessment of damage is to be determined by the board, and may be determined by them irrespective of any previous notice, or after such hearing and objection as it may deem appropriate. While the board is not-authorized to determine the amount of damage which may be caused, it is authorized in the exercise of its legislative discretion to determine in the first instance whether any damage will or will not result, and any error in such determination cannot be reviewed under a writ of certiorari.

Id.—Rights op Abutting Owners—Oonpormity op Width to Other Streets.—The owners abutting upon a street which is so diminished in width by the city authorities that thereafter it will have the same width as the majority of the streets of the city, cannot claim that the proposed reduction will interfere with their enjoyment of light and air, or that access to their lots is in any degree impaired.

Id.—Construction op Constitution—Damage to Property.—The provision of the constitution forbidding that property shall be damaged for public use without compensation, applies only to such damages as may be recovered under established rules of law, and does not apply to any mere diminution in value of abutting lands by the closing up of a street in whole or in part, nor to any mere inconvenience to abutting owners thereby occasioned if access to their land is not prevented.