From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People of Stanislaus County ex rel. Smith v. Myers

Supreme Court of California
Jan 1, 1860
15 Cal. 33 (Cal. 1860)

Opinion

         Appeal from the Thirteenth District.

         The complaint begins: " The above named plaintiffs, residents of and tax payers in Stanislaus county, complain," etc. It then avers that the Supervisors bought of defendant, Myers, who was Sheriff of the county, a certain house to be used as a court house; that, in pursuance of their order, warrants were drawn in favor of Myers on the County Treasurer for the purchase money; that for various reasons, among others the indebtedness of the county up to the limit allowed by law, the purchase and warrants were fraudulent and void. A demurrer, that " plaintiffs have no legal capacity to sue," being overruled, defendants excepting, answer filed, and the cause tried by the Court, a decree was rendered annulling the contract of purchase, and ordering the warrants to be delivered up, etc.

         Defendants appeal.

         The demurrer was improperly overruled, and the judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded.

         COUNSEL

         The county is the party interested, and not the people of the county. Suit should be in name of the county. (Wood's Dig. 249; 7 Cal. 121 .)

          L. Quint, for Appellants.

          H. P. Barber, for Respondents.


         JUDGES: Baldwin, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Cope, J., and Field, C. J., concurring.

         OPINION

         BALDWIN, Judge

         This was a bill filed in the District Court for the purpose of declaring void a contract made by the Board of Supervisors of Stanislaus county, for a court house, jail, etc.

         A demurrer was interposed by the defendants. One of the grounds is, that the action was improperly brought in the name of the people. The demurrer was overruled, and judgment for the plaintiffs. We are not at all convinced that, on the substantial merits of this case, the suit can be maintained, or that the county is not justly chargeable upon the contract set out. But we make it a rule not to decide cases in the absence of the parties who are beneficially and really interested, since that would be to allow a controversy to go on in the names and at the instance of parties who are not bound by the decision.

         The people of the county are not a corporation, nor are they recognized in law as capable of suing or being sued. If any objection is taken, or can be taken, to this contract, it must be by the county, which is a corporation; or if the officers of the county exceed their powers, or are acting, or about to act, with gross injustice and bad faith to the tax payers, and thereby subject them to unjust and unauthorized burdens, perhaps one or more of the tax payers, thus burdened or threatened, might, under peculiar circumstances, invoke the remedial powers of a Court of equity, to prevent irreparable injury. This case, however, presents no ground for relief, as it is presented by the record, in favor of the plaintiffs.

         The demurrer was improperly overruled, and the judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded.


Summaries of

People of Stanislaus County ex rel. Smith v. Myers

Supreme Court of California
Jan 1, 1860
15 Cal. 33 (Cal. 1860)
Case details for

People of Stanislaus County ex rel. Smith v. Myers

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF STANISLAUS COUNTY ex rel. SMITH et al. v. MYERS, Sheriff, and…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jan 1, 1860

Citations

15 Cal. 33 (Cal. 1860)

Citing Cases

People ex rel. Harris v. Rizzo

(Cf. People of Stanislaus County ex rel. Smith v. Myers (1860) 15 Cal. 33, 34 [“The people of the county are…

County of San Joaquin v. Jones

(Const. of Cal. Art. XI., secs. 4, 9; 15 Cal. 33; 2 Kent, 275; 9 Cal. 453; 16 Id. 208, 211, 255, 267, 273,…