California Supreme Court, 1876

McCullough v. Board of Education

California Supreme Court · Decided July 1, 1876

51 Cal. 418; 1876 Cal. LEXIS 67

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

Palmerton Borough v. Palmerton Area School District (Carbon County Court of Common Pleas 1961)
City of Marysville v. Boyd (Cal. Ct. App. 1960)
BOARD OF M. & A. OF YAZOO CITY v. Wilson (Miss. 1958)
Board of Mayor v. Wilson (Miss. 1958)
Roberts v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (Cal. Ct. App. 1949)
Headley v. City of Northfield (Minn. 1949)
Loehler v. United States (Court of Claims 1940)
Baird v. Board, C., South Orange (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1931)
Minnesota Power & Light Co. v. State (Minn. 1929)
Kelly v. Town of Hayward (Cal. 1923)
City of St. Louis v. Moore (Mo. 1916)
Stephens v. Lemoore Canal & Irrigation Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 1913)
McIntyre v. Board of County Commissioners (Colo. App. 1900)
McIntyre v. Board of County Commissioners (Colo. App. 1900)
Davenport v. Buffington (8th Cir. 1899)
City of Llano v. County of Llano (Tex. App. 1893)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

By the Court:

The Board of Education had no authority to appropriate Hamilton Square, or any portion thereof, as a site for the proposed high school. The purposes for which the public squares may be used are those defined by positive law, and the erection of school-houses thereon is not one of these purposes. The resolution of the Board of Supervisors assuming to authorize the Board of Education to appropriate *420a portion of this square for that purpose, though passed in due form, was inoperative, because the Board had no authority to devote a public square to that purpose.

The contract of the Board of Education, upon which the suit is founded, was consequently %Htra vires in the extreme sense, and the plaintiff could derive no rights thereunder, since he was bound to take notice that the Board of Education could not, under any circumstances, acquire a right to occupy a public square for school purposes,

Order granting a new trial affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.