People v. Town of Nevada

6 Cal. 143
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1856
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 6 Cal. 143 (People v. Town of Nevada) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Town of Nevada, 6 Cal. 143 (Cal. 1856).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Murray.

Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

The only question involved in this case is, whether the Act of March 27, 1850, so far as it confers upon the County Court the power of incorporating town governments, is constitutional. The jurisdiction of the County Court has been so often reviewed, that this Court will not be deemed impatient in simply announcing certain principles already declared by its previous decisions. First, the performance of certain legislative functions being confided to, or imposed by the Constitution upon the Legislature, must be exercised by that branch of the government; and in such cases the maximum delegatus non potest delegare applies. Second, this Court has repeatedly refused, since the question was first raised, to incorporate any college or eleemosynary corporation, because the Legislature can impose no duties upon the judiciary but such as are of a judicial character; and the incorporation of colleges or towns is not stricti juris judicial, but ministerial; or rather, under our Constitution, a legislative act. (See Burgoyne v. The Supervisors, and Dickey v. Hulburt, 5 Cal. Repts.)

This is not a special case, contemplated by the Constitution. The words, special cases,” refer to suits or controversies at law, and not to proceedings of this character. Admitting that the Legislature can delegate the power, under general law, (a proposition which we neither affirm nor deny,) of establishing town governments, it must be to the supervisors, or some other person or body possessing like functions, and not to a Court which is inhibited from the performance of any other than judicial acts.

Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re City of Phoenix
79 P.2d 347 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1938)
Burnett, Tax Collector v. Greene
144 So. 205 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
Burnett v. Greene
144 So. 205 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
Ex Parte Francis
165 S.W. 147 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Town of Searsburg v. Town of Woodford
57 A. 961 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1904)
Vernon v. Board of Supervisors
76 P. 253 (California Supreme Court, 1904)
Young v. Salt Lake City
67 P. 1066 (Utah Supreme Court, 1902)
In re Incorporation of Village of North Milwaukee
67 N.W. 1033 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1896)
Forsyth v. City of Hammond
71 F. 443 (Seventh Circuit, 1896)
Forsythe v. City of Hammond
68 F. 774 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana, 1895)
In re the Inc. of the Ridgefield Park
23 A. 674 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1892)
Ford v. Town of North Des Moines
45 N.W. 1031 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1890)
Territory of Washington ex rel. Kelly v. Stewart
23 P. 405 (Washington Supreme Court, 1890)
Ex parte Griffiths
3 L.R.A. 398 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1889)
People ex rel. Attorney-General v. Stanford
2 L.R.A. 92 (California Supreme Court, 1888)
People ex rel. Beltner v. City of Riverside
5 P. 350 (California Supreme Court, 1885)
People ex rel. Shumway v. Bennett
29 Mich. 451 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Cal. 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-town-of-nevada-cal-1856.