Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Cal. 73

Guy v. Hermance

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1855

California Supreme Court · decided 1855-07-01

This was an appeal from an order granting an injunction restraining the defendants from selling certain property in the City of San Francisco.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[t]he Legislature cannot exercise judicial functions, and therefore cannot except one case, or one party, from the operation of a general rule of law, either as to right or remedy.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 29 Cal. 3d 531 - Mandel v. Myers

Relies on Smith v. Morse · Shattuck v. Carson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1855-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently June 1981

12 state decisions

4018551860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶1Murray, C. J., concurred.

¶21. The right of the State to lands under water where the tide ebbs and flows, is founded upon her sovereign control over the easement, or right of navigation. Where, therefore, the easement is destroyed, the right of the State ceases, except to prosecute for perpresture, and have the easement restored.

¶32. The Legislature cannot exercise judicial functions, and therefore cannot except one case, or one party, from the operation of a. general rule of law, either as to right or remedy. That portion therefore of the Act of May, 1853, entitled, “ An Act to provide for the sale of the interest of the State of California in the property within the water *75line,” &e., which prescribes that no injunction shall be issued against the Commissioners is invalid.

¶43. The right of a party to have his title to land protected from a sale which might create a cloud upon it, was upheld by this Court in the cases of Smith v. Morse, 2 Cal. 524. Shattuck v. Carson, 2 Cal. 588

¶5Judgment affirmed.

/5/cal/73 · .json · Public domain