Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

30 Cal. 524

Tuohy v. Chase

California Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1866

California Supreme Court · decided 1866-10-15

In 1857, the County of San Joaquin was divided by the County Board of Supervisors into three Supervisor Districts, under the Act of March 31st, 1857. (Wood’s Dig., p. 697.) These Districts were named respectively One, Two, and Three. In 1862, John Tuohy was elected Supervisor for District Number Two, which then contained the three Townships of Tulare, Dent, and Castoria. His term of office expired in the fall of 1865.

Relies on People v. Allen · People ex rel. Jacobs v. Murray

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1866-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1912

3 state decisions

10186618701880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court, Shafter, J.:

¶1It is provided in the second section of the Act “to create a Board of Supervisors in the counties of this State and to define their duties and powers,” passed March 20th, 1855, (Acts of 1855, p. 51,) that “ the Board of Supervisors in these counties shall have authority at their last session before the general election in each year to change the boundaries of the (Supervisor) districts in .their said respective counties.” Time, here, is not bf the essence of the power conferred. “ The (general) rule is that where time is prescribed to a public body in the exercise of a function in which the public is concerned, the period designated is not of the essence of the authority but is a mere directory provision.” (People v. Murray, 15 Cal. 221; Smith’s Comm. 782.) In this case there is nothing in the nature of the power showing that it might not be exercised as effectually before as at the session named; and as there are no negative words restraining the exercise of the power to that occasion, the provision must be considered as directory to the Board and not as a limitation put upon its authority. (People *527v. Allen, 6 Wend. 486 ; People v. Peck, 11 Wend. 604; Merchant v. Langworthy, 6 Hill, 645 ; Ex parte Heath v. Roome, 3 Hill, 42.)

¶2Judgment affirmed.

/30/cal/524 · .json · Public domain