Koppikus v. State Capitol Comm'rs
Citations
- 16 Cal. 248
- 1860 Cal. LEXIS 214
Syllabus
<p>The Act of March 29th, 1860, providing for the construction of a State Capitol in the city of Sacramento, is not unconstitutional, as creating an indebtedness or liability on the part of the State exceeding the limit of $300,000, prescribed in the eighth article of the Constitution. The Act authorizes the Commissioners therein named to contract only to the extent of $100,000.</p> <p>No analogy exists between this case and Nougues v. Douglass, (7 Cal. 65) because there the Act of 1856 authorized a contract in a sum not exceeding $300,000, payable in State bonds, and at the time of its passage the State was indebted to the amount limited by the Constitution, without a vote of the people.</p> <p>Nor is the Act of 1860 unconstitutional, because it provides that the compensation to the owners of the land taken shall be ascertained by three Commissioners, and thus deprives the owners of the right to a jury trial. The provision of the Constitution, that “ the right of trial by jury shall be secured to all, and remain inviolate forever,” applies only to civil and criminal cases in which an issue of fact is joined. The proceeding to ascertain the value of property, under the Act of 1860, and the compensation to be made, is not an action at law. It is an inquisition for the ascertainment of a particular fact, as preliminary to future proceedings, and it is only requisite that it be conducted in some equitable and fair mode, to be provided by law, either with or without a jury, opportunity being allowed to owners and parties interested in the property to give evidence as to its value, and to be heard thereon.</p> <p>The language of the Constitution as to the right of trial by jury, was used with reference to the right as it exists at common law. This right of trial by jury cannot be claimed in equity cases, unless an issue of fact be framed for the jury, under the direction of the Court.</p> <p>In this case, the District Judge did not err in refusing the application to set
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “[T]he State can not by the courts be required to submit to being sued against its express consent.”
- \[T]he State can not by the courts be required to submit to being sued against its express consent.\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Field
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.