3 Cal. 389 | Cal. | 1853
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Murray, Chief Justice, concurred.
An appeal was taken from the County Court to the District Court, and there it was dismissed, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction.
This case involves the consideration, whether the legislature has the power to give appellate jurisdiction to the District Court. The first clause of the 6th section, article 6th of the Constitution, says: “ The District Courts shall have original jurisdiction in law and equity, in all cases where the amount in dispute exceeds two hundred dollars, exclusive of interest.”
The 4th section of the same article gives, with the same effect, appellate power to the Supreme Court; and the 9th section permits the legislature to give to the County Courts original or appellate power, or both, in special cases, and in cases arising in Justices’ Courts.
In arriving at this conclusion, we are fully sustained by authority. In the case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Crunch, the same question arose, upon the construction of the Constitution of the United States. There the Act of Congress, which was under review, was decided not to be. warranted by the Constitution. The opinion on that point of the case forms one of the ablest arguments of Chief Justice Marshall; and Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, embodies in the text as his own, the very language of that opinion. See 2 Story, sect. 1703.
The Constitution of the State of Texas has been construed by the Supreme Court of that State, upon the same question, and with the like result.
As early as the June Term, 1850, of this court, the identical question was raised, in reference to the power of this court. In the case of The People, ex rel., the Attorney-General, ex parte, 1 Cal. R. 85, it was held that this court had no other than
We are, therefore, after long and mature consideration, constrained to declare, that so much of the Act of the Legislature, as provides for appeals to the District Court, is unconstitutional and invalid.
We do not include in this decision any portion of the act which provides for appeals from the Prohate Court.
The language of the constitution, in reference to the jurisdiction of the District Court over cases in the Probate Court, is peculiar and obscure. The consideration of it is entirely unnecessary for the decision of the question here raised, and any expression of opinion would be obiter dictum.
Judgment affirmed.