Central Pacific Railroad v. Board of Equalization
Central Pacific Railroad v. Board of Equalization
Opinion of the Court
The writ in this case required the Board to certify the proceedings had before them relating to the equalizing of the valuation of the property of the railroad company, and all things touching the same, as fully and entirely as the same remained before them, “ and also the orders, process, judgment, proceedings, and evidence therein.” The return was made by the Clerk of the Board, who certifies that the same is a full, complete and true transcript of all the matters required by the writ to be certified, “ as the same are and remain of record and on file ” in his office. The petitioner moves for a further return to the writ on the ground that the return already made is defective, because it does not contain the evidence on which the Board acted in increasing the valuation of the property.
It is not asserted that the evidence produced before the Board was taken in writing, or that it was preserved in any manner whatsoever, or is to be found in any document under the control of the Board or their Clerk. The writ is directed to an inferior tribunal or Board exercising judicial functions, and section four hundred and fifty-eight of the Practice Act provides, that££ when directed to a tribunal, the Clerk, if there be one, shall return the writ with the transcript required.” The Clerk can return- a transcript only of such documents, orders, etc., as remain of record or on file in his office. It is not made his duty, or that of the Board, to take down or preserve the evidence in a matter of equalization; nor is any provision made for the settlement of a statement or a bill of exceptions, but doubtless some convenient and proper mode might be adopted for the preservation and authentication of the evidence, when it was desired to have the proceedings reviewed. BTothing of the kind seems to have been done in this case, and consequently the evidence cannot be certified to this Court. The statute prescribes the mode of procedure in a writ of certiorari, and
Motion denied.
Sanderson, J., and Currey, C. J., dissenting specially:
We dissent. (Blair v. Hamilton, 32 Cal. 49; 14 Cal. 479; 15 Cal. 300.)
Reference
- Full Case Name
- CENTRAL PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF THE COUNTY OF PLACER
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Beturn to Writ of Certiorari.—A writ of certiorari, issued out of this Court, was directed to the Board of Equalization of Placer County, to the end of determining whether, in the matter of the equalization of the assessment, for the purposes of taxation, for the year 1866, of certain of the property of the railroad company, the petitioner, the Board, when exercising judicial functions in said matter of equalization, had exceeded its jurisdiction ; and commanded the Board to certify up the said suit and proceedings, with all things touching the same, as fully and entirely as they remained before it, by whatever name the parties might have been called therein ; also, the orders, process, judgments, proceedings and evidence therein, annexed ; to which a return had been made by the Clerk of the Board, containing, according to the certificate of the Clerk, a full, true, and correct transcript of the said records and proceedings of and concerning the said suit and proceedings, with all things touching the same, as fully and entirely as the same remained before said Board : also, of all orders, process, judgments, proceedings, and evidence therein, and therein and thereto annexed, as fully as the same were and remained of record and on file in the office of the Board and of said Clerk of the Board—which return, however, did not contain any evidence received by said Board; whereupon, without any showing, other than said writ and return, the petitioner moved, in this Court, for a further writ, requiring the certifying up of the evidence adduced to and received by the Board, on which the said judgments and orders of equalization had been made. The said return disclosed that witnesses had been examined and evidence received from them by the Board, of and concerning the value of said property, and that its value was thereby proven to be of a sum stated greater than that for which it had been assessed, to which increased valuation it was equalized for said purpose : held, that said motion should be denied. Ipsar.—By the four hundred and fifty-eighth section of the Practice Act, it is required that when the writ of certiorari is directed to a tribunal, the Clerk, if there be one, shall return the writ with the transcript required. The Clerk can only return a transcript of such documents, orders, judgments, proceedings, etc., as remain of record, or on file in his office. Idesi.—The statute authorizing and prescribing the mode of equalization, does not require the taking down, or the preservation in any manner, of the evidence on which equalization may be made by either the Board or Clerk of the Board. Neither does the statute prescribing the mode of procedure in a writ of certiorari, require the inferior tribunal to prepare a statement of the evidence to be annexed to the return.