....

.44, 45, 129, 141, 149, 157, 165, 168, 245, 252, 253, 261,

166

.224, 676

.245, 877

Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. U. S., 99 U. S. 420..
Union Sav. Bank v. Dunlap, 135 Cal. 628..
Union Water Co. v. Fluming Co., 22 Cal. 627....
Union Water Co. v. Murphy's Flat Co., 22 Cal. 627.
University of Cal. v. Bernard, 57 Cal. 613.
Upham v. Horking, 62 Cal. 258.

.263, 266, 284

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

Vance v. Kohlberg, 50 Cal. 346.

Vandall v. S. F. Dock Co., 40 Cal. 83.

Van Harlinger v. Doyle, 134 Cal. 58.

14

380

15

.114, 350, 855 245, 246, 264, 877

574

.252, 261

Vaca Valley etc. R. R. Co. v. Mansfield, 84 Cal. 560
Ventura etc. R. R. Co. v. Hartman, 116 Cal. 260..122, 124, 224, 227, 229
Ventura v. Thompson, 51 Cal. 577....

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

12

..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

16

266

8

Vernon School Dist. v. Bd. Education, 125 Cal. 593.
Verzan v. McGregor, 23 Cal. 346.....
Vilhac v. Stockton etc. Co., 53 Cal. 208.
Visalia etc Co. v. Sims, 104 Cal. 326...
Visalia etc. R. R. Co. v. Hyde, 110 Cal. 632....224, 228, 231, 232, 243

Volcano etc. Co. v. Supervisors, 88 Cal. 635..
Von Arx v. S. F. etc. Verein, 113 Cal. 377.

.265, 267, 452

Wall v. Mines, 130 Cal. 27........101, 106, 107, 111, 112, 113, 273,

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

.......

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

678

..36, 165, 169, 190, 191, 478, 479

West Coast etc. Co. v. Wolff, 133 Cal. 315..
West Coast S. F. Co. v. Wolff, 133 Cal. 317.
West v. Crawford, 80 Cal. 19......
Weston v. Bear River Co., 5 Cal. 186, 6 Cal. 425.
Western Union v. Cooper, 10 Am. St. Rep. 786.
Western Union Co. v. Hyer, 1 Am. St. Rep. 228.
Western etc. Co. v. Knickerbocker, 103 Cal. 111.
Wetmore v. Barrett, 103 Cal. 246.
Wetmore v. Wetmore, 113 Cal. 321..
Wharf v. Simpson, 77 Cal. 290...

.207, 219, 221

487, 492, 493

.123,

124, 227, 231

.214, 487, 816

398

398

16

19

146

261

51

.111, 130, 132, 147, 150

Whitney v. Seller's Com. Co., 130 Cal. 188.
Wickersham v. Brittan, 93 Cal. 34......
Wickersham v. Crittenden, 93 Cal. 17, 106 Cal. 327, 110 Cal. 332,
.142, 146, 153, 154, 156, 249, 250, 675

.32, 38, 39, 50, 170, 412, 413, 417, 422, 624 .33, 38, 170

Winchester v. Maybury, 122 Cal. 522...
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..

Wolf v.

.211, 212, 214, 216, 217, 219, 877 .191, 204, 877

St. Louis Co., 15 Cal. 319, 320.

Wood v. Truckee etc. Co., 24 Cal. 474, 475....
Woodman of World v. Rutledge, 133 Cal. 640.
Woodruff v. Howes, 88 Cal. 184..
Woodsum v. Cole, 69 Cal. 145.
Wooster v. Nevills, 73 Cal. 58.
Workman v. S. P. R. R., 129 Cal. 536.
Wright v. C. C. Ry. Co., 78 Cal. 364
Wright v. C. W. Co., 67 Cal. 532..
Wright v. Oroville etc. Co., 40 Cal. 20.

Page

.297, 393, 570, 816

.779, 780 .151, 183, 250

.216, 217

213

.347, 375, 856 181

.46, 161, 174, 177, 179, 180

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.

14. Eminent domain.

EMINENT DOMAIN.

ARTICLE I.

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 withCorporation Laws-1

out 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.

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 Pac. 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 etc. R. 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. 459; 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; Beveridge 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 emiLent domain for railroad purposes, and that right may be exercised by a 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.)