Hollister

Hollister v. Kingsbury

Good Law
129 Cal. App. 420·1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 1151·18 P.2d 1006
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 2, 1933Docket No. 4716.California2,974 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Thompson, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County directing a writ of mandamus to issue requiring the appellant to file the petitioner’s application for a permit to prospect for oil and gas in state lands pursuant to Statutes of California of 1921, chapter 303, page 404. The question which is here involved is whether an urgency amendment to section 4 of that statute, which was adopted by the legislature in 1929 (Stats. 1929, chap. 7, p. 11; 2 Deering’s Gen. Laws, p. 3456, Act 6341), withdrawing certain state lands from exploration for oil and gas by private littoral owners, is in conflict with the provisions of article IV, section 1, of the Constitution of California for failure to state therein the facts warranting such emergency legislation.

The Mineral Land Act of 1921 authorized the Surveyor-General to permit prospecting for oil and gas on certain state lands upon specified terms, by private littoral owners. In 1929 section 4 of this act was amended as an urgency measure, with the proviso: “That no permit to prospect or drill for oil or gas in or upon any tide, overflowed or submerged lands shall ever be granted by the surveyor general upon an…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.