Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

56 Cal. 648

Borrell v. Boggs

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1880

California Supreme Court · decided 1880-07-01

Wallace, J. The action was brought to recover a sum of money paid by the respondent under protest to the appellant as tax collector of Napa County. The plaintiff claimed that the lands upon which the taxes were paid were not in the county of Napa but in the county of Sonoma. The defendant had judgment. After the decision in Department, the appellant filed his petition that the appeal be reheard in Bank, and the application was denied.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1880-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1958

4 state decisions

2018801890190019101920193019401950decided

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:

¶1The question in this case is as to the conclusiveness of the survey of the boundary line between Sonoma and Napa Counties, as approved by the surveyor-general of this State. The Court below held that it was conclusive, and refused to receive evidence to contradict the survey.

¶2*649Section 8972 of the Political Code reads: “All surveys finally approved under the provisions of this chapter arc conclusive ascertainments of lines and corners included therein.” Either the above section is unconstitutional, or the survey is ' conclusive. It is claimed that the section is unconstitutional, in that it attempts to confer on the surveyor-general judicial functions. We do not think that the functions exercised by him are judicial in their character; he is not, under that section, to decide what is the law. The Legislature had already, in regard to the boundary between the two counties, fixed the law; viz., that the summit of the dividing ridge should be the dividing line. We think it was competent for the Legislature to direct its officer to go upon the ground and run his lines along that ridge ; and in' doing so, he was acting more in a ministerial capacity ; and we think that it was competent for the Legislature to declare that the lines so run, that is, the location of the boundary line upon the ground, should be thereby defined and fixed.

¶3No question is presented of improper action on the part of the surveyor-general.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/56/cal/648 · .json · Public domain