Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

Truckee etc. Co. v. Campbell, 44 Cal. 91....
Tulare Co. v. May, 118 Cal. 306..
Tulare etc. Bank v. Talbot, 131 Cal. 45.
Tuller v. Arnold, 98 Cal. 522.
Tyler v. Tehama Co., 109 Cal. 622.

Pago 816

14 .122, 210, 212, 227 139, 140, 260

2

9

Underhill v. S. B. Co., 93 Cal. 300 .44, 45, 129, 141, 149, 157, 165, 168, 245, 252, 253, 261,

....270, 271, 462, 463, 469 Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. U. S., 99 U. S. 420..

166 Union Sav. Bank v. Dunlap, 135 Cal. 628..

224, 676 Union Water Co. v. Fluming Co., 22 Cal. 627..

.245, 877 Union Water Co. v. Murphy's Flat Co., 22 Cal. 627. .263, 266, 284 University of Cal. v. Bernard, 57 Cal. 613.

14 Upham v. Horking, 62 Cal. 258..

380

[ocr errors]

Vail v. San Diego, 126 Cal. 35...

15 Vance v. Kohlberg, 50 Cal. 346....

.114, 350, 855 Vandall v. S. F. Dock Co., 40 Cal. 83.

245, 246, 264, 877 Van Harlinger v. Doyle, 134 Cal. 58.

574 Vaca Valley etc. R. R. Co. v. Mansfield, 84 Cal. 560

252, 261 Ventura etc. R. R. Co. v. Hartman, 116 Cal. 260..122, 124, 224, 227, 229 Ventura v. Thompson, 51 Cal. 577.....

12 Vercoutere v. Golden Gate L. Co., 116 Cal. 410..

...83, 124, 128, 129, 165, 168, 171, 245, 462, 469, 628 Vermont etc. Co. v. De Clez etc. Co., 135 Cal. 579..

.45, 47, 206, 208, 209, 210, 281 Vernon School Dist. v. Bd. Education, 125 Cal. 593..

16 Verzan v. McGregor, 23 Cal. 346.....

266 Vilhac v. Stockton etc. Co., 53 Cal. 208.

8 Visalia etc Co. v. Sims, 104 Cal. 326..

.265, 267,

452 Visalia etc. R. R. Co. v. Hyde, 110 Cal. 632....224, 228, 231, 232, 243 Volcano etc. Co. v. Supervisors, 88 Cal. 635.

.388, 556, 628 Von Arx v. S. F. etc. Verein, 113 Cal. 377.

.774, 777, 782 Wall v. Mines, 130 Cal. 27........101, 106, 107, 111, 112, 113, 273, 274 Walsh v. Cosumnes Tribe, 108 Cal. 496

778 Walter v. Merced etc. Assn., 126 Cal. 586... Walters v. Academy Assn., 126 Cal. 582.

209 Walters v. Henningsan, 114 Cal. 433.

201 Ward v. Severance, 7 Cal. 129

576 Warner v. Mower, 11 Vt. 385, 391.

178 Warnock v. Hulon, 96 Cal. 307 Waterloo etc. Co. v. Cole, 51 Cal. 381.

.29, 30, 816 Waymire v. S. F. etc. Co., 112 Cal. 646

.39, 169,

249 Weaverville W. R. Co. v. Bd. Supervisors, 64 Cal. 69....272, 276, 388

.224, 229

.475, 476 Page Webber v. County of Santa Clara, 59 Cal. 265...

....2, 3 Weeks v. Gold M. Co., 73 Cal, 599.

116, 117, 118 Welch v. Plumas Co., 80 Cal. 341.

.297, 392, 393, 564 Welch v. Sargent, 127 Cal. 72.

.190, 200, 201, 205, 208, 210, 212, 224, 232, 252 Wells v. Black, 117 Cal. 152. .34, 35, 128, 129, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 414, 415, 416,

. 417, 419, 421, 422, 423, 479, 480, 673 Wells, Fargo Co. v. Coleman, 53 Cal. 416....

678 Wells, Fargo Co. v. Enright, 127 Cal. 669.

..36, 165, 169, 190, 191, 478, 479 West Coast etc. Co. v. Wolff, 133 Cal. 315.

207, 219, 221 West Coast S. F. Co. v. Wolff, 133 Cal. 317.

487, 492, 493 West v. Crawford, 80 Cal. 19.......

123, 124, 227, 231 Weston v. Bear River Co., 5 Cal. 186, 6 Cal. 425.. .214, 487, 816 Western Union v. Cooper, 10 Am. St. Rep. 786..

398 Western Union Co. v. Hyer, 1 Am. St. Rep. 228...

398 Western etc. Co. v. Knickerbocker, 103 Cal. 111.

16 Wetmore v. Barrett, 103 Cal. 246..

19 Wetmore v. Wetmore, 113 Cal. 321.

146 Wharf v. Simpson, 77 Cal. 290.

261 Wheelock v. First Pres. Church, 119 Cal. 483..

431, 439, 440 White v. Fresno Nat. Bank, 98 Cal. 167.

49 Whitehead v. Sweet, 126 Cal. 67, 72.

.179, 180, 229 Whitehurst v. Stuart, 129 Cal. 194.

202 Whiting v. Townsend, 57 Cal. 518..

374 Whitney v. Seller's Com. Co., 130 Cal. 188.

51 Wickersham v. Brittan, 93 Cal. 34.

.111, 130, 132, 147, 150 Wickersham v. Crittenden, 93 Cal. 17, 106 Cal. 327, 110 Cal. 332,

.142, 146, 153, 154, 156, 249, 250, 675 Wigmore v. Buell, 122 Cal. 144.

15 Wills v. Porter, 132 Cal. 516..

158, 251 Williams v. Bank, 42 Am. St. Rep. 511...

268 Williams v. Bergin, 116. Cal. 61..

166 Willianrs v. W. U. T. Co., 93 N. Y. 162..

166 Wilmington Trans. Co. v. O'Neil, 98 Cal. 7.

521 Wilson v. Spring Hill etc. Co., 10 Cal. 445.

481 Wilson v. S. P. R. R., 62 Cal. 172.

357 Winchester v. Howard, 136 Cal. 432.

....32, 38, 39, 50, 170, 412, 413, 417, 422, 624 Winchester v. Maybury, 122 Cal. 522..

.33, 38, 170 Winona Wagon Co. v. Bull, 108 Cal. 1.....

35, 190, 193, 195, 196, 197, 202, 479, 480 Winter v. Belmont M. Co., 53 Cal. 428..

.211, 212, 214, 216, 217, 219, 877 Wolf v. St. Louis Co., 15 Cal. 319, 320..

...191, 204, 877

37,

.779,

Page Wood v. Truckee etc. Co., 24 Cal. 474, 475........297, 393, 570, 816 Woodman of World v. Rutledge, 133 Cal. 640.

780 Woodruff v. Howes, 88 Cal. 184...

151, 183, 250 Woodsum v. Cole, 69 Cal. 145.

..216, 217 Wooster v. Nevills, 73 Cal. 58..

213 Workman v. S. P. R. R., 129 Cal. 536.

347, 375, 856 Wright v. C. C. Ry. Co., 78 Cal. 364

181 Wright v. C. W. Co., 67 Cal. 532... .46, 161, 174, 177, 179, 180 Wright v. Oroville etc. Co., 40 Cal. 20.

.144, 151, 152, 201, 255, 256 Wulzen v. Board of Supervisors, 101 Cal. 15..

5

Yore v. Bankers' etc. Co., 88 Cal. 609

.49, 51 Yore v. Superior Court, 108 Cal. 435....

...171, 300, 491, 494, 495, 497, 498, 500 Young v. Iron Co., 4 Am. St. Rep. 759.

212 Young v. Rosenbaum, 39 Cal. 646...

.36, 193, 194, 205 Younglove v. Steinman, 80 Cal. 375. 184, 185, 224, 228, 230 Yule v. Bishop, 133 Cal. 574, 22 Cal. Dec. 255......36, 196, 197, 266

Zellerback v. Allenberg, 99 Cal. 57
Zion M. E. Church v. Hillery, 51 Cal. 155.

147, 166, 167

132

CORPORATION LAWS

OF CALIFORNIA.

CONSTITUTION.

PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA

RELATING TO CORPORATIONS.

ARTICLE I.

14. Eminent domain.

EMINENT DOMAIN.

Sec. 14, Art. I. Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation having been first made to, or paid into court, for the owner, and no right of way shall be appropriated to the use of any corporation other than municipal until full compensation therefor be first made in money or ascertained and paid into court for the owner, irrespective of any benefit from any improvement proposed by such corporation, which compensation shall be ascertained by a jury, unless a jury be waived, as in other civil cases in a court of record, as shall be prescribed by law.

For manner of exercise of right of eminent domain, see sections 1237-1263, Code of Civil Procedure.

Legislative History.

Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of 1849 contained only the following provision as to the exercise of the right of eminent domain: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use with.

Corporation Laws-1

cut just compensation.” As the clause now stands, private property cannot be taken nor damaged for public use without just compensation having been first made as prescribed.

[ocr errors]

Section Cited.

Reardon v. San Francisco, 66 Cal. 501, 56 Am. Rep. 109, 6 Pac. 317; Pacific Coast R. R. Co. v. Porter, 74 Cal. 262, 15 Pae. 774; Moran v. Ross, 79 Cal. 551, 21 Pac. 958; Pacific R. R. Co. v. Wade, 91 Cal. 456, 25 Am. St. Rep. 201, 27 Pac. 768; San Bernardino ete. K. R. Co. v. Haven, 94 Cal. 492, 29 Pac. 875; S. V. W. W. v. Drinkkouse, 95 Cal. 223, 30 Pac. 218; Eachus v. Los Angeles etc. Ry. Co., 103 Cal. 616, 42 Am. St. Rep. 149, 37 Pac. 750; De Baker v. Railway Co., 106 Cal. 284, 46 Am. St. Rep. 237, 39 Pac. 610; San Diego Water Co. v. San Diego, 118 Cal. 572, 62 Am. St. Rep. 261, 50 Pac. 633; Nickey v. Stearns Ranchos Co., 126 Cal. 153, 58 Pac. 439; County of San Mateo v. Coburn, 130 Cal. 634, 63 Pac. 78, 621; Steinhart v. Superior Court, 137 Cal. 579, 92 Am. St. Rep. 183, 70 Pac. 629; Bev. eridge v. Lewis, 137 Cal. 629, 92 Am. St. Rep. 188, 67 Pac. 1040. 70 Pac. 1083.

This section has been cited in following cases, which do not pertain to private corporations: Webber v. Co. of Santa Clara, 59 Cal. 265; Tehama Co. v. Bryan, 68 Cal. 65, 8 Pac. 673; San Francisco v. Collins, 98 Cal. 262, 33 Pac. 56; San Francisco v. Kiernan, 98 Cal. -617, 33 Pac. 720; Tyler v. Tehama Co., 109 Cal. 622, 42 Pac. 240; Bigelow v. Ballerino, 111 Cal. 563, 44 Pac. 307; Rudel v. L. A. Co., 118 Cal. 287, 50 Pac. 400; Eachus v. Los Angeles, 130 Cal. 495, 80 Am. St. Rep. 147, 62 Pac. 829.

Annotation.

Delegation of Right of Eminent Domain.—The right of eminent domain is inherent in the state and not conferred by the Constitution, and may be delegated by the legislature to any corporation or individual who shall comply with the terms upon which the right is given. The codes confer upon private individuals the right of emiwent domain for railroad purposes, and that right may be exercised by 3 partnership. (Moran v. Ross, 79 Cal. 159, 21 Pac. 547.)

The power of eminent domain is one of the inalienable incidents of sovereignty which may be exercised in favor of public uses over any and all property, private and even public, and the property and franchises of corporations, as well as of individuals, although dedicated to public use, may be taken for other public uses; but this inalienable power is to be exercised under and by virtue of the legislative will as expressed by the law-making power, and the right to exercise it must be given expressly or by necessary implication

from the power expressly given. (S. P. R. R. Co. v. S. Ca. Ry. Co., 111 Cal. 221, 43 Pac. 602.)

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »