*1 Thomas Peidham. September 29, A. No. In Bank. 4356. 1915.] [L. THOMAS, PRIDHAM, P. A. as Chair- Petitioner, R. v. W. County, Angeles Supervisors man of of Los of Board Respondent. Angeles Improvement
Road District Act—Los Charter—Section op 7%, XI, of the charter of "VII Article Constitution.—Article part with Angeles virtually of Los is identical n relating forma section t'o article XI of the constitution 7% divisions, highway turn- of road construction districts provide management, to and t'heir for the formation of such districts . confided, by permission being electors, charter, supervisors. to the board of op op -Supervisors—Act District—Authority Id.—Formation Road op (St'ats. Improvement of 1907” 1907.—The Act “Road District 806) road dis- 1907, p. provides of a a scheme for formation a supervisors of trict, plan originate to with the county, opportunity given defeat the creation to by a contemplated writing by filing objections district majority given author- The board owners of land therein. ity, filed, order work to be where no has been to effective contract; it done; bids; execute to advertise for award the to to board; ofdeer of the behalf of the the' accept completed; bonds the indebt- the work when to issue edness; provide by “special upon a tax” and to payment principal inter- the land within the district bonds same shall become due. upon said as the est by.—That portion Repealed Angeles Id.—Los -Charter—Act not Angeles upon of Los which is sec- the charter of based repeal XI the constitution not “Road tion. of article county. Improvement application of 1907” in Act its —Framing County Id.—Construction -Constitution Charters require of Charter.—The constitution does not —Construction equivalent framers of charters to include therein enactments Angeles charter, County with "VII the Los but leaves people proposing charter, of each discretion to they general whether or desire the determine t'o be depend in might pertaining matters to district assessments; that' the the Los formation for the of road dis- board of procedure require tricts does not the board follow liberty constitution, XI of the it is section 7% set pursue either the method outlined charter or in the statute of forth Thomas op Property Id.—Constitutionality op op Act 1907—Assessment According Act of Value.—The Bead District permitting not unconstitutional the assessment rather within its value t'he formed under *2 in than accordance with the benefits conferred. op op 1907—Hearing por Property Id.—Construction Act Owners— that no Notice—Protest.—There is no merit contention in the hearing for all property provided owners of for the district (Stats. the act 809) 1907, p. Section of the act parties for hearings by publication after due to all notice concerned. own- right While to writing is limited ers record pre- as defined does not limitation section, vent persons record) (including those not owners appearing objec- before the board of and voicing their tions. legislature may protest by granting The right limit to to owners of record. Supreme originally APPLICATION made Court a Writ against of Mandate chairman of su- board pervisors Angeles compel Los County sign him to a con- tract and to fix beginning completing time certain road work. facts opinion
The are stated of the court. r Sherer, Albert J. Robert Young, Hartley Shaw, and Arthu Baker, G. for Petitioner. Hill, County
A. Counsel, J. and Charles Haas, Deputy E. County Respondent. Counsel, for Ellis,
Arthur M. Amicus Curiae. MELVIN, J. that a Petitioner askedwrit of mandate issue compel defendant, officer sign Angeles, of Los con certain tract and fix beginning completing the time for and for certain Angeles work Los and Redondo and Gould road Lane within Road District 36 of the of Los An No. geles. An alternative writ was issued. is not denied defendant that the contract was awarded plaintiff proceedings provisions under of the “Road Act (Stats. p. 806). of 1907” The refusal sign proffered of the defendant to contract is based two contentions, the first that the said act Gal. Thomas superseded by provisions of VII of second, of Los and the said stat- act of 1907 is unconstitutional and void because according to its contemplates
ute an assessment arising proportion from the value and the benefits improvement. petitioner that there are two methods takes the stand county roads— improvement for the in districts of under the act of 1907 and other under the article of
of the constitution the seventh points following charter. He out the facts: 1. The constitu- contemplate tion and charter creation within the limits of municipality .government county of a with a form of en- altogether differing temporary tirely from the own its said act of road district which be established raising money pay 2. The ex- 1907; and, methods improvements charter and the act penses of under the *3 radically. differ of Examining article XI the constitution we section of 7½ language:
find this competent, shall framed under the charters, ‘.‘It any given by provide, in authority this section to addition by constitution, this and same allowable the other following for matters.” is provide, shall the This followed by of the matters for which a specifications including composition provide,” the and election “shall compensation supervisors, selection of other boards of the and powers and county officers, specification the the duties of by public of certain assumption officers officials, the regulation by super- municipal fixing functions, the and and the several de- of the number of clerks attaches visors payment of partments government, and the of the of certain other officerswhose selection and these assistants After enumeration by general laws. of these mandatory following provide,” verb “shall matters language: XI contains this 7 ½ authority given by “All framed under sec- charters tion, specified, the matters hereinabove addition to . follows.” . . formation, counties, in such of road districts for “For the only inspection supervision repair, and care, maintenance, formation, for highways bridges; and and roads, Thomas for construction such construction counties, of divisions highways inclusion roads, bridges; for the and any any any part such division, district or of the whole or incorporated city passed such town, upon or ordinance incorporated same, authorizing upon the city or town and assent by majority qualified to such inclusion a of the electors town, incorporated city portion thereof, pro- such or or posed purpose; for included, be so at an election held organization, for powers jurisdiction of government, and raising therein, such divisions, districts and revenue majority purposes, by taxation, such upon the assent of voting qualified divisions, electors of such districts or incurring at an purpose; election to held for that for the counties, indebtedness therefor such or divi- districts sale, purposes respectively, by sions for such the issuance and counties, counties, bonds of or divi- such districts sions, expenditure proceeds of such sale levying bonds, collecting against and for prop- taxes erty counties, divisions, may be, districts or as the case payment principal for the interest of such indebt- maturity.” paragraph provides edness at The rest requires for an election the assent of two-thirds qualified county, or electors division to author- ize the indebtedness and makes for the collection of sinking tax, annual the creation perti- of a fund and other quotation given nent matters. The sufficiently above illus- scope of the trates the section.
Article YII of the charter of Los virtually identical with that of section of article XI relating of the constitution to the formation of road dis- highway divisions, tricts and construction pro- vide for formation of such districts manage- and their *4 ment, permission electors, the by confided supervisors. charter to the (Stats. the board p. 1491.) Improvement “Bead District (Stats.
The Act of 1907” p. 806) provides a scheme for the formation a road district, plan originate to with the supervisors the board county, opportunity being given of a an to defeat the crea- contemplated by objections filing tion of the district the writing by majority a the owners of land therein. The authority, given where no board effective has been Thomas v. Pridham. bids; to done; to advertise to filed, order the work to supervisors of the contract; to execute behalf award the by board; accept the work when the of the to officer indebtedness; to completed; pro- the and to issue bonds for upon land “special a tax” all of the vide payment principal within the interest district for the upon said bonds shall become due. as the same
We charter portion are satisfied that Angeles upon constitutional of Los which is based examining repeal the which we have been not p. Improvement 1907,” “Road District Act of [Stats. 806], its application county. to that seen, require
As fram- we constitution have does not equiva- ers of charters to include therein enactments Angeles County section VII charter. This lent to of the Los people would intention to leave with the each indicate proposing charter, a discretion to determine general they whether or not law to be desire pertaining might depend in they matters by respondent It assessments. seems to be conceded people a are amicus curiae that omit scheme liberty to or to roads, that XI with reference to but contend of article charter, plan that within their char- having embodied legislative sanction, people having of Los due ter received County thus availed have themselves method totally improvement of roads at variance construction is, But article VII of the charter in it- law of with the supervisors may “The merely pro- permissive. self, opening road districts” formation are vide is no There declaration in article. the charter words of plan must resort to the set supervisors forth in the that the proper to constitution, it seems create road if districts. system sought employ to be authority to conferred bare Conceding that supervisors. the omission of all upon the n districts of road have left would mention statutory plan follow the free conceded) to it follows that (and that seems mere pursue necessary steps form districts permission method, prevent would by a different end resort Law.” is clear “Road intended leave of the charter framers *5 108 tiept. PbidhaM. Thomas instru- liberty pursue the method outlined either ment or that in 1907. This conclusion set forth statute of makes it unnecessary for whether or this to determine might not a prevent charter fashion as to be framed such supervisors resorting general the board of to the dealing county. unnecessary with the roads of the It is also language permissive to decide whether or not such effective plan to make outlined article XI county. constitution the law the In other words we may need not here determine whether the charter confer merely permissive powers upon supervisors. a board of How- ever, McCarthy, ease Mardis Cal. Pac. [121 389], appears directly point to be question, as au- thorizing course, such a as proposition well as supervisors until the board of had permis- acted under such authority, sive the charter cannot be any pro- held to contain suspend operation vision gen- effective eral laws relative to the matter. When the do plan, such a thereof so far as authorized by the charter will “have same sanction and the same ef- incorporated fect would have if in the it- (Mardis McCarthy, self” Cal.
389]), question presented applicability as to the general regarding laws of the state such matter will be an entirely different one. Nor need question, we discuss the so argued ably briefs, in the whether or not the law of 1907 inis plan direct conflict with set forth If the charter. are not foreclosed the terms of the charter general law, it makes from resort no difference how systems improvement be the two of road diverse within follows, therefore, that the writ districts. must be made respondent required must peremptory sign and the be some defect in unless there contract “Road District 1907.” Improvement Act of Defendant attacks that statute permits because- it unconstitutional within the property to its value in accordance with the benefits rather than conferred. valorem, specific instances the ad Admitting system upheld, benefits of assessment nevertheless coun system respondent wrong insist that the sel that it spirit and letter the constitution of violates the California. 14.) improvements Assessments for local (Art. I, sec. ac Thomas v. Pbidham. fre cording to have been the value of assessed quently generally and in upheld this state attacked *6 gener jurisdictions. other in this state have The decisions Mayor ally the Burnett Council followed v. Common of City re in 12th volume of California Sacramento the the of ports. Field, delivering opinion of Mr. Justice the the among things (p. 84), Am. Dec. said, in that case other [73 518]): injustice general taxa- question law in avoids of
“The the recipi- purposes, lays upon tion for local the burden the according apportions ents of the benefit. It the tax adjacent property, assessed cash value the which is as near equitable can approximation to an rule as well be estab- adopted No could be which would work abso- lished. rule at- equality. approximation An to it is all that can be lute power apportionment, power with tained. The the legislature. taxation, exclusively in the is The constitution tax, prescribes inhibition to the contains no no rule against Security apportionment. power the abuse of the rests justice legislature, in wisdom and of the members of the the People responsibility The and their to their constituents. See Mayor Brooklyn, 419, 266], 4 N. Am. Y. Dec. [55 opinion in of the court and briefs and the cases cited volume, counsel, appendix latter are very 24 Manning, In the recent case of Hunt v. Cal. 607.” App. 49, objection 39], the same was made as that very which we interposed here, defendant that this statute in conflict with section considering, was are here taking in that it seemed to authorize the I of constitution awarding compensation. was property private without contemplated act there held that since established, highways upon which have improvements been owner of ordinarily it must be assumed assessed damage different from property will not that common suffer Emery In by reason of the work. San to all such owners speaking through Co., 28 the court Gas Cal. Francisco Sawyer Mr. said: Justice investigation is, of our result there no restric-
“The
upon
legislature
in our constitution
tion
expenses
defray
public improve-
impose assessments to
streets,
grading
planking
upon
nature
ment
supposed
thereby
any
be benefited
district des-
Thomas v. Pridham.
ignated by
proper
municipal
legislature,
or the
officers
governments
acting
authority of
law. And
according
apportion
authorized to
raised
the amount
value,
received,
proportion
the benefits
frontage
superficial
any
contents,
principle
or the
or to
apportionment
general sovereign
that can
referred to the
right
People
taxation
Buggies,
as defined Mr. Justice
Brooklyn.”
Speaking upon
subject
upholding
right
of assess-
valorem,
in a
principle
ment
manner different from the ad
Mr.
Justice Harrison in
opinion
proceeding
In Ma-
re
Irrigation
dera
District,
Rep. 106,
Am.
St.
controversy
L. R. A.
In Bradley, 176, Fallbrook District v. 164 S.U. Sup. L. 369, Rep. supreme 56], Ed. 17 Ct. court of [41 objections considering the United States was made Wright e., Act; apportion- i. it that for ment of assessments Mr. to value. Justice Peck- ham, speaking court, for said: “Assume that the theory improvements upon local these assessments for they can imposed stand is that are on account of the ought received, justice and that no land benefits to be as- greater yet for a than the benefits it, sessed sum received fact of plain it is that the the amount benefits is not sus- ceptible appertains of that accurate determination which to a geometry. arriving Some means of demonstration at this used, may be and the must same method amount be more or involving in different cases less accurate different facts. made, to be choice is where fact Some some benefit accruing legally has found, the lands can be it adoption assessing ad valorem method lands of the federal held a violation constitution i It is to be seems clearly not. It one of these matters us detail in ar- proper and fair riving proportion at the amount regard be is to levied the land with tax that to the benefits received, open which is discretion of it the state ought and with which this nothing lgislature, to have 106 Cal. [171 Thomas v. Pridham. way arriving may some do. The amount rising inequitable unequal, instances is far but that problem from a ease the level of far constitutional taking process of law.” property without due regard the In must view decisions feel we of these we as Defendant matter far as this is concerned. settled so state 172 rely largely Baker, seems to Norwood v. upon the case of 269, support 443, Sup. Rep. 187], to U. S. Ed. L. Ct. [43 un system his contention that the valorem of assessment ad considering the constitutional. In case the court was assessing reviewing the action property. method was by injunction preventing an inferior court in collection opening upon the an assessment of a street levied any property bounding abutting upon without that street question or not consideration of the whether said with greatly was at variance benefited. were so The facts regard scarcely can those involved in the case at we bar that Moreover, hold that that ease did not as value here. special contra benefits assessment of lands a district any of the United States. vened of the constitution explained v. Baker was real doctrine of Norwood Asphalt Co., Paving 324, v. 181 U. L. French Barber S. [45 Davidson, 181 879, Sup. 625], Wight U. Rep. Ed. Ct. Rep. and Duncan 900, Sup. 616], S. L. Ct. Ed. [45 opinion in Ramish, 142 Cal. Pac. In 661]. points case last Shaw fact that cited Mr. Justice out the supreme States by later the United construed decisions of regarded merely as a court, Norwood Baker now long ago Lent v. falling announced case under the rule 71], a local tax of this Tillson, plainly upheld court can see nature “will not be when the *8 manifestly certainly no can or . such benefit . . and Nor reasonably expected to have been result.” there could expressed anything with our views in Mr. in conflict above opinion City Spring Street Co. v. Los Justice Henshaw’s Realty Hamburger City & Trust Co. Los and Angeles, method 24, Pac. Not the 217]. application par but its prescribed opinion was attack. We are of the ticular case there under “Road Act 1907” is consti tutional. Thomas v. peremp- should made alternative writ follows
tory chairman and requiring the defendant Angeles County Los officer of the plaintiff’s pleading execute the contract set forth beginning fix the completing time for work there- specified. It is ordered. so J., Lorigan, Lawlor, J., Sloss, J., Angellotti, J., con- C. curred.
Mr. Justice did participate Shaw not the consideration or discussion of this case.
Rehearing rehearing denying denied. On court filed following 28, opinion on October 1915: MELVIN, J. denying petition rehearing say points wishes to that all made briefs but not opinion discussed carefully were find considered. We no merit in the contention that no hearing for all owners property in the district for in act (Stats. Section 5 of the 1907, p. 809) act for a hearing by publication after due notice parties to all con- right cerned. While the in writing is limited to owners as defined in record the section this limitation does prevent persons (including interested those not owners record) appearing before the board voicing objections. legislature their may limit the right protest by granting to owners of record. (Hellman Shoulters, 114 Cal. Pac. Pac. . 1057]; German Soc. Ramish, Sav. etc. 138 Cal 126, [69 1067].) 70 Pac.
Sloss, J., Lawlor, J., Angellotti, J.,C. concurred.