Bishop v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

Citations

• 87 Cal. 226
• 25 P. 435

Syllabus

<p>Prohibition — Eminent Domain — Municipal Corporations — Right of Way for Sewer—Failure to Agree — Authority to Sue.—A writ of prohibition will not lie to restrain the prosecution of an action by city authorities to condemn a right of way for a sewer, on account of the absence of an averment or proof that the city authorities were unable to agree with the defendant, or that the local board of the municipal corporation had expressly directed the institution of the proceeding.</p> <p>Id.—Jurisdiction —Question of Law — Appeal.—Whether or not the failure to sgree or to authorize the suit is a bar to the condemnation proceeding is not a question going to the jurisdiction of the superior court, but is a question of law to be determined by it in the course of the proceeding; and any error in such determination is subject to review upon appeal, and does not furnish ground for a writ of prohibition.</p> <p>Id.—Superior Court — Jurisdiction of Condemnation Proceeding — Constitutional Law — Special Cases —Code — Municipal Government Act. ■—The ‘superior court is a court of general jurisdiction, and derives its jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding by a city or town to condemn private property for a right of way from the constitutional grant of jurisdiction over special eases not otherwise provided for, and from the provisions of the code relative to special proceedings, and nob from the municipal government act.</p> <p>• Id. —Construction of Municipal Government Act —Failure to Agree — Direction to Sue__The provisions of section 870 of the municipal government act do not affect the jurisdiction of the superior court to hear and determine all questions that may arise between the parties in a condemnation proceeding by a city or town, although a failure to agree, or to direct suit to be brought as therein provided, may affect the right of the municipality to maintain the action and to secure the relief demanded.</p>