40 Cal. 497 | Cal. | 1871
Lead Opinion
delivered the opinion of the Court, Temple, J., and Crockett, J., specially concurring. Rhodes, C. J., dissenting. Sprague, J., expressed no opinion.
The plaintiff recovered upon an assessment for grading a portion of Yan Ness Avenue, in San Francisco, under the Consolidation Act, as amended in 1862-and 1863. This ap'peal is taken from judgment and order denying a new trial.
The first point presented by the appellant for our consideration assails the constitutionality of the statute under which the proceedings were had. It is argued that the leading principle of the Act (vicious in itself as it is said)' which directs that each lot shall be assessed in proportion to its frontage, and at a rate per foot front upon the street to be graded, is at war with both the letter and spirit of the Constitution. In support of this view the last clause of Section 8, Article I, of that instrument is cited: “Nor shall property be taken for public use without just compensation.” It is, however, scarcely necessary to remark that this clause merely fixes a limitation upon the otherwise unrestrained power of eminent domain inherent in the State Government, and that neither the power itself nor its limitation is involved in the proceeding now in question.
It is next urged that the statute is unconstitutional, because, as it is said, it .imposes a tax to be levied, not upon an ad valorem principle, and in aid of the point Section 13, Article II, of the Constitution is appealed to: “Taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout the State. All property in this State shall be taxed in proportion to its value, to be ascertained as • directed by law; but assessors and collectors of town, county and State taxes shall be elected by the qualified electors of the district, county or town in which the property taxed for State, county or town purposes is situated.” The aim really had in view by the framers of the Constitution in adopting this clause, and the jealousies
It was directly asserted by this Court more than ten years ago, in the case of Burnett v. The City of Sacramento, (12 Cal. 76), in which case Mr. Justice Field, with the concurrence of both his associates, speaking with reference to the levy of an assessment upon property to pay for grading the adjacent street, said: “The thirteenth section of Article XI of the Constitution does not cover the case. * * * For the expenses of such improvements it is competent for the Legislature to provide, either by general taxation upon the property of all the inhabitants of the county or town in which they are made, or upon property adjacent thereto and specially benefitted thereby.”
This distinction, as applied to the present Consolidation Act, was pointed out and maintained with marked ability, and upon the most elaborate research, in the case of Emery v. The San Francisco Gas Co. (28 Cal. 345); it was again expressly recognized in the subsequent cases of Emery v. Bradford, (29 Cal. 82), and Walsh v. Matthews, (Id. 123). At a still later period, in Taylor v. Palmer, (31 Cal. 240), the question again came under , review in this Court, and this distinction was pointed out and maintained with great clearness and force. Since the decision in Taylor v. Palmer, (supra) until now, the constitutionality of the Act
The validity of the proceedings resulting in the assessment is, however, questioned upon other grounds.
It is said that there was no official grade already determined for Van Ness Avenue, when the Board resolved to grade it. But it'is evident that the appellant is mistaken in this proposition. It did not, as he supposes, require the signature of the persons composing the Board of Engineers to be attached to the maps and profiles, prepared under the statute (Acts 1863-4. p. 460,) in order that these maps and profiles should become valid. Section 3 provides that the approval of the Board of Supervisors, shall impart validity to them. Besides, if the signatures of the engineers were ever material for that purpose, they clearly ceased to be so, upon the passage of the Act to ratify and confirm certain or-inances, etc, (Acts 1865, p. 166.)
It is next objected, that the resolution which was passed by the Board, expressing their intention to grade Van Ness Avenue, was not “published according to law.” A more accurate statement of the position of the appellant on this point would be, that it was not published according to the order of the Board. It will be .seen by reference to the statute) that the publication is required to be made for “ a period of ten days.” It appears that the Board in this instance, made an order that the resolution be published, for a period of ten days, from and after Monday, the 29th clay of July, 1867. It is not denied that publication for “a period of ten days,” was had before the Board proceeded further; but the point is, that the notice was not published for the particular period of ten days defined in the order— the publication not having commenced until July 31, 1867.
If the Board have authority, by its own order, to alter at its pleasure, in the slightest particular, any one of these prescribed prerequisites to the vesting of its own jurisdiction, we have not discovered whence such authority is derived. As we read the statute, the mere passage of the resolution here, had, for the time being, exhausted the whole power of the Board in the premises, and it could at that time proceed no further in that direction. Especially it could not assume to itself to make an order by which a new rule of publication should be put in force, and essentially differing from that one which the statute had theretofore provided. Eor instance; it could not require by its order, that the publication should be had for the period of eleven days, instead of the ten provided for by the statute. If it should enter an order to that effect, and the publication should proceed, it is clear that the jurisdiction, so far as it depended on publication, would attach at the expiration of ten days’ publication, .and without reference to the publication on the eleventh day. Otherwise the Board must be said to have
If it should be asked why the Board could not be permitted to require the publication to be continued for the period of eleven days, a sufficient answer would be found in the fact that the statute had already dispensed with the necessity of eleven, when it fixed upon ten days as the proper period. As we have seen, its language is: “Published for a period of ten days,” etc. A period of ten days means any such period after the passage of the resolution and signature by the Clerk. The substitution of the adjective pronoun for the indefinite article used in the statute, would not make its import plainer in this respect. The exclusion, then, of that period of ten days, which commenced on July 31st, as a proper period of publication, has no countenance in the statute itself, which neither excludes it or authorizes the Board to do so. Such power, if it exist, renders the Board superior to the Act which created it, and set limit of its authority. It would be, in fact, a power in the Board to repeal the statute itself in this respect; for there is no practical difference between an order which should repeal the words of the statute, and one which would alter their essential meaning.
Nor do Aye see that it devolves upon the Board to undertake the direction of the publication of their resolution of intention in any case. That is provided for by the same statute which has empowered the Board to pass the resolution itself, and which then required both signature of the Clerk, and publication for a fixed period. Undoubtedly if the Board should think proper upon the passage of such a resolution to make an order that the Clerk should sign it, and that it should be published for the period of ten days, or simply published, which, as we have seen, means publication for ten days — in other words, if the Board choose to reenact the statute — no harm would result; but even then the required acts when done, would be referred for their validity
It results from, these views, that tbe Board, to use tbe language of tbe statute, “acquired jurisdiction,” to order tbe work in question to be done.
It is next objected, that tbe assessment was made by tbe Superintendent of Streets to owners unknown — when, in fact, tbe proof showed that tbe officer did know who was tbe owner, etc.
Tbe statute provides (Section 9), that the Superintendent shall make an assessment which shall show tbe amount to be paid, etc., “tbe owner of each lot or portion of a lot, (if known to tbe Superintendent), if unknown, tbe word ‘unknown ’ shall be written opposite tbe number of tbe lot and tbe amount assessed thereon,” etc. Tbe word “unknown” was in this instance written opposite tbe number of tbe lot of appellant upon tbe assessment.
We lately bad occasion in tbe case of Hewes v. Reis to define tbe import of the word “unknown,” when thus endorsed by tbe Superintendent upon tbe assessment, and we then beld that it amounted to an official certificate by tbe proper officer, that in point of fact tbe owner of tbe particular lot designated, was unknown to him. We think that when such a ceidificate has been given by tbe officer, it is conclusive of tbe fact so certified, and cannot be collaterally called in question in- an action brought upon tbe assessment upon which it is officially entered. A party who relies for recovery upon such an assessment, is not to be called upon Ijo embark in an inquiry as to tbe probabilities of tbe actual state of knowledge possessed by tbe officer at tbe time that tbe certificate was made but may rely upon it as conclusive, that in point of fact such ownership was unknown to tbe officer. This we understand to be tbe general rule as to tbe effect of such certificates, when collaterally assailed, and if such certificate be false in fact and damage has ensued, tbe party injured must seek bis redress by an action against tbe officer, directly alleging its untruth.
The conclusive answer to this objection, however, is that the appellant might have appealed to the Board of Supervisors, and it would have been their duty, if the objection had been well taken (a point upon which it is not necessary for us to express an opinion), to have directed the Superintendent to proceed to make a- contract in conformity with the order of the Board.
The statute (Sec. 12) provides for an appeal to the Board by any party “feeling aggrieved by any of the acts or determinations aforesaid of the said Superintendent;” etc. j!iow, one of the acts * * aforesaid, of the said Superintendent (as provided by Section 7), is to enter into all written contracts authorized by the Act; and the statute provides that, upon such appeal, the decision of the Board shall be final “ as to all errors and irregularities which said Board could have remedied and avoided.” The Board having obtained jurisdiction regularly in the first instance to order the work to be done; retains that jurisdiction until it is finally completed in the manner pointed out by law. This principle Was applied in this Court, in the case of Dougherty v. Foley (32 Cal. 402), where the Board having regularly acquired jurisdiction to order certain work done, a contract was awarded to a person who subsequently failed to comply with it on his part, and it was held that the Board, having acquired jurisdiction in the first place to order the work done, and having made the order, “the subsequent steps were ministerial in their character,” and that consequently the Board might re-let the contract without commencing de novo.
So, in the case of Nolan v. Reese, (32 Cal. 486), it was held that neither a fraud which affected “ the award of the work,” nor one which affected the “legality of the assessment,” could be shown in defence of an action against the lot-owner in the assessment, because these matters might have been decided by the Board on appeal.
We think that while the statute intended to leave open for judicial inquiry all questions which can be said to be of a jurisdictional character, its purpose was to submit all other questions to the decision of the Board itself. It is well enough for the appellant to come here to say that the Board had no jurisdiction to order the work done at all, but when he comes only to say that it was not well or sufficiently done, the Superintendent in the first instance, and the Board on the last resort, would seem to have been considered by the statute, and wisely considered, we think, as most likely to correctly determine that matter. It may be that in the understanding of the. Board and others who deal with these matters, a street graded in accordance-with the specifications here is up to the official grade; that the “officialgrade ” is
However tbat may be, tbe jurisdiction of tbe Board over such questions is clear.
Tbe judgment and order denying a new trial are affirmed.
Concurrence Opinion
By
concurring:
In this case I agree with Mr. Justice "Wallace in bis conclusions, but in some respects I do not agree with tbe process of reasoning adopted by him, nor with bis statement of tbe rules of construction by which tbe statute is to be interpreted.
Tbe first question which I propose to notice, is tbat in reference to tbe publication of tbe resolution of intention. Tbe statute says tbe Board may order tbe work to be done, after notice of their intention to do so (signed by tbe Clerk), has been published for ten days. As I understand this statute, it requires notice to be given by tbe Board itself. At tbat time therewereno parties to tbe proceeding, and consequently tbe notice can be given by no one save tbe Board. Tbe power to grade streets is in them, but tbe very first step in tbe exercise of tbe power, is to give tbe notice, or rather this is a condition precedent to their exercising tbe power at all. Tbe requirement tbat tbe resolution shall be signed by tbe Clerk is addressed to tbe Board, and not to tbe Clerk. He is tbe mere servant of tbe Board, and has no power except as their servant. Tbe provision only directs tbe mode of attestation by tbe Board. Tbe manner of giving notice is by publishing tbe resolution; and it seems to me it must inevitably follow that tbe publication must be
In this case the Board did direct the publication of the resolution, but it is contended, that as they directed it to be published for ten days from and after its passage, and it was not published until the second day after the day upon which it was passed, it was not published in accordance with the directions of the Board, and the publication was, therefore ineffectual to vest the Board with the power to order the work to be done.
There is no doubt that a statute which provides that it shall take effect from and after its passage, will be in full operation on the following day. It is also well settled, that when a contract fixes the commencement of a period, within which certain acts are to be done, as commencing from the date or the day of the date, the time commences to run as early as the following day; but in these cases the expressions are used for the purpose of fixing a definite time when a law shall begin to be operative, or a limit within which certain things are to be done. The time is of the essence of the thing. "Where, however, in the execution of a statutory power, time is mentioned, unless it is a limitation upon the power, the power may be exercised after that time; in other words, the provision as to time is directory. In the present case the direction is from the Board to its servant. The matter is between them so far as the particular language, in which their instructions are given, is concerned.
The essential thing to the public was that the resolution be published officially. The language was probably not selected with any great care, and I think should receive a liberal construction, with a view to give effect to the intention
But it is said, if tbe Board acquired jurisdiction to order tbe work to be done, by tbe publication of tbe resolution, still tbe contract made by tbe Superintendent of Streets is void, because it is not for tbe work 'mentioned in tbe resolution. Tbe resolution, in legal effect, is said to call for grading tbe street to tbe official grade. All tbe preliminary proceedings in tbe Board are of like import; but tbe Super-tendent entered into a contract “to grade to tbe official height and line, except the roadway, which was to be graded one foot below tbe official grade.” Tbe answer to tbis objection, as I understand it, is two-fold. First, it is said tbe contract is substantially in accordance with tbe resolution of intention — tbat is, it is graded to tbe official grade, allowing for pavement, macadamizing or planking — one of of which must be done before tbe street is fit for use. There is no evidence tbat tbe street was to be finished in either of these modes. There is nothing in tbe proceedings of tbe Board indicating such an intention. If tbe question be one of definition, it seems to me, there should have been some evidence tbat tbe language, in tbe connection in which it was used, has tbis unusual signification. Tbe phrase “official grade,” has a well understood meaning, and there is nothing in tbe case to indicate tbat it has any different signification when used with reference to contracts for grading streets.
It is true, as said in Smith v. Davis, (30 Cal. 536), in these proceedings “ the various Acts prescribed by the Legislature must, in all essential particulars, be strictly performed." It is the exercise of a naked statutory power, in which the prescribed mode is a limitation upon the power. It is a proceeding to divest individuals of their estates, and the statute must be strictly construed in favor of individual rights; and yet the statutes confer powers which are to be used for the public good, and the officers-charged with their execution are necessarily intrusted with a large discretion. Such statutes are of a mixed character, partly penal and partly remedial, and should be liberally construed, so far as it is necessary to render their execution practicable. It is an old rule that the language in which the legislator has expressed his will is not to be so used as to defeat that will. Even statutes wholly penal are not to be so-strictly construed as to defeat the obvious intent of the Legislature.
The desired end in the construction of these statutes, as applied to this class of cases, is that individuals should be deprived of no safeguards which the Legislature has pro
I do not tbint, however, tbat there is any magic in tbe fact, tbat after notice of intention, tbe Board acquire “jurisdiction,” which will excuse to any extent, a compliance with tbe requirements of tbe statute. Tbe word jurisdiction of course means power, for there is nothing of a judicial nature in tbat portion of tbe proceedings, which relates to ordering tbe work and letting tbe contract.
There is nothing peculiar in this statute in this respect. It is generally, if not always tbe case in statutes conferring tbe power to divest vested rights, tbat notice is given to tbe parties, whose rights are affected, as a condition precedent to tbe exercise of tbe power. Tbe statutes in regard to laying out or changing highways provide for notice, which must be given before tbe Board bas jurisdiction to act; but I never beard tbe proposition advanced tbat this dispensed with a full compliance with tbe statute, in the exercise of tbe power, after tbe jurisdiction bad been acquired. Tbe same is true of all proceedings for tbe condemnation of lands, and even in tbe assessment and collection of tbe general taxes, in which case tbe assessment roll is, upon notice, laid open for tbe inspection of tbe tax-payers; and an appeal provided from tbe action of tbe assessor to tbe Board of Equalization.
It is not to be supposed tbat tbe Legislature bas provided, with tbe greatest minuteness, tbe mode which tbe Board is to adopt in these proceedings, and then excused them from pursuing tbe mode, except at tbeir option. I therefore think,
The contract is really between the Board -of Supervisors, as the agents of the city and county, and the contractor. The work for which bids are made, and which the contractor agrees to do, is that described in the resolution of intention. The agreement is complete when the bid is accepted, and it is the contract made by the Board, which the Superintendent is. required to reduce to writing. As said in Emery v. Bradford, the tax-payer is not a party to the contract; and it is reasonable and proper that the Board of Supervisors, which represents the city and county, should determine whether the work has been done in accordance with the contract, and that their decision should be final. The taxpayer, however, though not of a party to the contract, is allowed to object that the work has not been done in accordance with the contract and to appeal from the determination of the Superintendent accepting it. I have no doubt but that this right is exclusive of any other remedy as to all matters which can .be revised and corrected on such an appeal.
In this case the written contract did not correctly describe the work which the Board had ordered to be done, and which the contractor had agreed with the Board to do. The error was in the written memorandum made by the Superintendent. The statute providing an appeal is broad enough to include an appeal from the determination of the Superintendent, and I see no reason why a complete remedy is not afforded by it. The Board, as already stated, could order the contract to be reformed and refuse to allow an assessment until the work was made to conform to it.
On tbe other questions discussed, I concur witb Mr. Justice WALLACE. I also concur in tbe judgment.
Concurrence Opinion
By
concurring:
I concur witb Justices Wallace and Temple in tbe opinion that tbe order denying tbe motion for a new trial ought to be affirmed, and I also concur witb Justice Temple on tbe first point discussed in tbe opinion. I think tbe publication of tbe notice of intention was sufficient, for tbe reasons stated by him. Tbe notice being sufficient there appears to have been no irregularity in tbe proceeding, down to and including tbe award of tbe contract by tbe Board of Supervisors. Tbe work ordered to be done was to grade tbe street, which was equivalent to an order to grade it to tbe official grade, as we have several times decided. Tbe contractor put in bis bid to do tbe work, and tbe contract was awarded to him at a stipulated price per cubic yard. It then became tbe duty of tbe Superintendent of Streets to enter into a written contract witb tbe contractor binding the latter to tbe performance of tbe work ordered by tbe Board, at tbe agreed prices and within tbe stipulated time. In performing tbis duty, tbe Superintendent of Streets was, pro hac ■vice, tbe agent of tbe Board witb authority to execute tbe contract which bad been awarded, and no other or different contract. He occupied towards tbe Board in tbis respect tbe relation of a special agent, having a limited authority to execute tbe contract for tbe particular work specified in tbe order of tbe Board, which was to grade tbe street to tbe official grade. But it appears that, in tbe contract which
In Story on Contracts (Sec. 21), the rule by which to ascertain whether a contract is divisible in its nature or is to be deemed an entirety, is thus stated: The criterion of a divisible contract is, that the extent of the consideration on either side, is indeterminate until the contract is performed. Neither party to such a contract can claim more than an equivalent for the actual consideration on his part No specified entirety of consideration on either side constitutes a condition of the bargain, but only a certain relation and proportion between the consideration on both sides, to be ascertained on the completion of the contract.” Tested by this rule, the contract in this case is clearly divisible in its nature, and the consideration to be paid is capable of apportionment. The work to be performed was to be paid for at a certain rate per cubic yard and it was a matter easily to be ascertained, how much excavation was required
If, however, tbe contract bad related to a building wbicb tbe Board bad ordered to be erected under a contract awarded to tbe lowest bidder, who was to do tbe work according to tbe plans and specifications, for a gross sum to be paid on tbe completion of tbe building, and if tbe Superintendent in entering into tbe contract bad materially varied tbe plan of tbe building, and increased tbe gross sum to be paid, it is evident tbe contract would bave been wholly void because of its entirety, and because it was wholly incapable of apportionment. In tbe case of Dougherty v. Hitchcock, (35 Cal. 512), tbe work ordered to be done was tbe grading of a street and tbe crossings for tbe distance of several blocks, to be let out under one contract for tbe whole; but tbe Superintendent divided tbe work into several sections, and entered into a separate contract for tbe grading of each section; and this Court properly, I think, pronounced tbe contract void. No one of tbe contracts provided for all tbe work wbicb tbe Board bad ordered to be done under one contract, and tbe question of apportionment, and of tbe divisible nature of tbe contract could not therefore arise. Each of tbe contracts was void for tbe obvious reason tbat it did not include all, but only a small portion of tbe work wbicb was ordered to be done under one contract. For satisfactory reasons tbe Board bad deemed it best to let out tbe whole work under one contract, and tbe Superintendent has no authority to frustrate this purpose by cutting up tbe work into sections and letting it under separate contracts. But tbe case at bar is wholly different. All tbe work wbicb was ordered to be done was included in tbe contract, but in addition thereto, it provides for additional work to be paid for at tbe same rate. Tbe additional work, as we bave seen, and its costs, may readily be ascertained by computation
I concur with Justice 'Wallace on the points discussed in his opinion, other than those already noticed.
Dissenting Opinion
I dissent from tbe judgment and from tbe opinion of Mr. Justice Wallaoe, except on tbe constitutional question.