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
Judges: Field
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
34 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Shawn Garfield Price v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 2001-06-25· cited 416×
- McBean v. City of FresnoCalifornia Supreme Court· 1896-03-25· cited 107×
- Dorsey v. BarbaCalifornia Supreme Court· 1952-02-04· cited 59×
- Saleno v. City of NeoshoSupreme Court of Missouri· 1895-03-19· cited 56×
- Wiggins & Johnson v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Florida· 1895-06-15· cited 49×
- Bigelow v. DraperNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1896-11-11· cited 46×
- Rhea v. NewmanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1913-05-07· cited 46×
- Fish v. BensonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1886-12-18· cited 44×
- Little v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court· 1894-10-08· cited 37×
- State ex rel. Ash v. ParkinsonNevada Supreme Court· 1869-01-15· cited 36×
- People v. Javier A.California Court of Appeal· 1984-08-31· cited 33×
- County of Los Angeles v. PayneCalifornia Supreme Court· 1937-04-02· cited 32×
- Appeal of S. O. HoughtonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1871-10-15· cited 31×
- State ex rel. Helena Water Works Co. v. City of HelenaMontana Supreme Court· 1900-12-17· cited 30×
- State ex rel. Rankin v. State Board of ExaminersMontana Supreme Court· 1921-05-02· cited 30×
- Dorsey v. Barry.California Supreme Court· 1864-07-01· cited 29×
- Ripling v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1952-07-24· cited 27×
- Donahue v. BabbittArizona Supreme Court· 1924-07-29· cited 25×
- Board of Education v. MulcahyCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1942-03-12· cited 23×
- Cassidy v. SullivanCalifornia Supreme Court· 1883-10-30· cited 23×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced 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.