Butte Co. v. Boydstun (1886) · DecisionDepot

Butte Co. v. Boydstun

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Aug 31, 1886 No. No. 11,523Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that there was no misjoinder of parties, the complaint was sufficient, and the necessity of taking land for a road is a determination made by the board of supervisors rather than the court.

Issues

Whether there was a misjoinder of parties defendant.
Whether the complaint was sufficient.
Whether the court may review the necessity of taking land for a road after a determination by the board of supervisors.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The question of necessity is settled by the board of supervisors, and, having so determined, it is not a question for the court to pass on”

Synopsis

Road—Authority of Supervisors—Province of Court.—Where the question of the necessity of taking land, for a road was settled by a board of supervisors, it is not a question for the court to pass on. 1

By the COURT. There was no misjoinder of parties defendant. The complaint was sufficient. There was no error in striking out that portion of defendant’s, Boydstun’s, answer, which attempted to raise an issue as to the necessity of taking the land for the road. The question of necessity is settled by the board of supervisors, and, having so determined, it is not a question for the court to pass on: Tehama Co. v. Bryan, 68 Cal. 57, 8 Pac. 673.

Judgment affirmed.

Butte Co. v. Boydstun

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief