The City of Oakland filed a complaint in the superior court asking for declaratory relief and an injunction to restrain the defendant, as director of agriculture, frоm withdrawing his approval of municipal inspection of slaughter houses maintained outside the city’s boundaries but from which meat products are furnished to the inhabitants of -the city. The defendant’s general demurrer to the complaint was overruled. He declined to answer and the court entered judgment declaring the extraterritorial inspection by the plaintiff of the slaughter houses involved to be authorized and valid and decreeing that the defendant Brock continue his approval оf such municipal inspection. The defendant appealed from the judgment.
The complaint alleges the maintenance of a meat inspection dеpartment by the city; the existence of four slaughter houses in contiguous incorporated territory in which meat inspection departments are not maintainеd and from which eighty per cent of the meat from the animals slaughtered is sold within the corporate limits of the City of Oakland; the adoption in *641 1928 of Ordinance No. 4123, New Series, reenacted in 1932 as part of the Municipal Code of Oakland, providing for inspection of slaughter houses, and the continued inspection service thеreunder of such outlying slaughter houses; the enactment of state legislation (Stats. 1931, p. 567; Stats. 1933, p. 60), providing for state inspection of slaughter houses and approval by the director of agriculture of municipal inspection thereof; the previous approval pursuant thereto of the plaintiff’s inspection of such outlying slaughter houses; and the threatened withdrawal by said director of his approval of the municipal inspection of such outlying slaughter houses on the ground of allеged lack of authority to approve municipal inspection of slaughter houses outside the limits of the municipality.
The only allegation in the complaint respecting the provisions of Ordinance No. 4123, New Series, is the following: “That in and by the terms of said ordinance, and in section 55 thereof, it is provided for the inspectiоn of meats at slaughter houses lying outside the corporate boundaries of the said City of Oakland when meats therefrom arc sold within said City of Oakland.”
This court will not take judicial notice of municipal ordinances in a proceeding originating in the superior court.
(Marysville Woolen Mills
v.
Smith,
A municipal corporation has generally no extraterritorial powers of regulation. It may not exercise its governmental functions beyond its corporate boundaries. (Const., art. XI, sec. 11;
Von Schmidt
v.
Widber,
The authorities do not recognize extraterritorial regulation and inspection in itself as either nеcessary or indispensable to a governmental function in such cases. The decisions point to the obvious method of enforcing compliance with appropriate standards, viz., inspection at the city limits *643 or, where that is inadequate, the requirement for a permit or license, and compliance with prescribed regulations as a condition precedent to the issue thereof.
On the record here presented the lack of the factor of either necеssity or indispensability is further shown by the application of the provisions of the Agricultural Code. That code makes compulsory federal, state or municipal insрection of all establishments in the state operated for the purpose of slaughtering animals. (Stats. 1933, p. 60.) The sale of meat for food purposes within the state is prohibited unless it bears the “inspected and passed” stamp of either the federal, state or municipal inspection departments. (Sec. 305.) Recognition is extended to municipal inspection departments existing or to be inaugurated. (Sec. 302.) Upon the approval by the director of agriculture of an establishment operating under municipal inspection there may be added to the stamp in use in said establishment the words “Cal. approved”, and such stamp is acсorded the same recognition as “Cal. inspected and passed”. (Sec. 303.) The act provides for a comprehensive program of inspection and regulation of slaughter houses outside the jurisdiction o£ any established municipal inspection department. It is not alleged nor contended that such state regulаtion and inspection is insufficient protection to the health and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Oakland. Recognition of existing or future municipal inspeсtion departments does not therefore necessarily include nor compel approval of inspection service performed by municipalities outside their territorial boundaries, even though such service presupposes requirements for standards equal to those prescribed by the Agricultural Code. If it did, the activities of the municipality would be resolved into a race to claim fees for inspection from every establishment outside of the city otherwise subject tо inspection under the Agricultural Code which supplied any portion of its meat or meat products to inhabitants of the city.
The present action is appropriate as an action against an officer of the state to compel performance of a duty enjoined upon him by law. (Sec. 1085, Code Civ. Proc.;
Nougues
v.
Douglass,
*644 It follows, however, from the foregoing discussion, that the complaint does not state a cause of action and the demurrer should have been sustained.
The judgment is reversed.
Langdon, J., Seawell, J., Edmonds, J., Thompson, J., and Curtis, J., concurred.