Williams v. Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County

58 Cal. 237
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1881
DocketNo. 7,330
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 58 Cal. 237 (Williams v. Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County) 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
Williams v. Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County, 58 Cal. 237 (Cal. 1881).

Opinion

Ross, J.:

By § 3447 of the Political Code the petition for the formation of the swamp land district in question was required to “be published for four weeks next preceding the hearing thereof,” in some newspaper, etc. And § 3258 of the same code declares: “A week consists of seven consecutive days.”

It is obvious that the petition could not be published for four weeks next preceding its hearing, unless it was published for four consecutive weeks. And inasmuch as the petition could not be published for four consecutive weeks, unless it was published at least once a week for that period, and since the statute defines a week to be seven consecutive days, it necessarily results that it could not be published for four weeks next preceding its hearing unless it was published at least once every seven days for the period of four weeks next preceding the hearing. Whether a publication once a week for the time mentioned when made in a newspaper published oftener than that, is sufficient under the statute, need not be determined in this case, since it appears from the findings of the court below that there were two intervals of more than [239]*239seven consecutive days in the four weeks next preceding the day fixed for hearing the petition, in which there was no publication of the petition.

The statutory publication was one of the jurisdictional steps in the proceedings, and as the petition in question was not published in accordance with the requirement of the statute, all of the subsequent proceedings were invalid.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

McKinstry, J., and McKee, J., concurred.

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

Related

County of Los Angeles v. Payne
255 P. 281 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
Fostler v. Los Angeles
176 P. 438 (California Supreme Court, 1918)
Seccombe v. Roe
133 P. 507 (California Court of Appeal, 1913)
Winkler v. Jerrue
129 P. 804 (California Court of Appeal, 1912)
Voss v. Reyburn
148 S.W. 510 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1912)
Brandt v. Krogh
111 P. 275 (California Court of Appeal, 1910)
Reclamation District No. 765 v. McPhee
109 P. 1106 (California Court of Appeal, 1910)
People v. Reclamation District No. 136
53 P. 1085 (California Supreme Court, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 Cal. 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-board-of-supervisors-of-sacramento-county-cal-1881.