Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

7 Cal. 286

Thomas v. Armstrong

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1857

California Supreme Court · decided 1857-07-01

<p>Appeal from the County Court of Yuba County.</p> <p>This was a petition in the Court below by Thomas, a ferry proprietor, for a peremptory mandamus against the defendants, as supervisors of Yuba county, to compel them to renew his license. The Court dismissed the petition, and hence the appeal.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1857-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 1955

13 state decisions

3018571860187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

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 →

Murray, C. J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court—Burnett, J., concurring.

¶2This was an application for a 'mandamus in the Court below to compel the supervisors to renew a ferry-license.

¶3It appears from the record that the plaintiff was, and had been for a long time previous, running a ferry across the Yuba River; that he applied to the supervisors for a renewal of his license, and made the necessary proof that he had kept and run the said ferry according to law. The supervisors refused the application, on the ground that the franchise or privilege had been sold on execution against the petitioner, and that the purchaser, to whom they awarded the license therefor, was subrogated to the rights of the plaintiff.

¶4In the case of Catherine Monroe v. L. W. Thomas, we held that a franchise was not the subject of levy and sale by execution. From this it follows that the sale of the plaintiff’s privilege was a nullity, and that the purchaser acquired no right thereby.

¶5The twenty-seventh section of the act concerning public ferries, provides that every person to whom a license to keep a ferry shall have been granted, and who shall have kept the same in accordance with law, shall be entitled to have such license renewed, etc. Ye think that this section confers a right upon the party which cannot be arbitrarily divested or disregarded. If it were a case in which there was any doubt, and the supervisors had exercised their discretion, and had determined, on testimony, that the ferry had not been properly kept, there would be no authority to interfere with their determination; but when they act under a mistake of law, and award the license to a stranger, under the supposition that he has succeeded to the rights of the plaintiff, their orders may be reached and the error corrected by mandamus or any other proper proceeding.

¶6We are satisfied that the correct remedy in this case is by mandamus. The party is entitled on his showing, the facts of which are not controverted, to a renewal of his license. The supervisors refuse to award it to him, and he has no other remedy within or knowledge for the assertion of his rights.

¶7Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

/7/cal/286 · .json · Public domain