Dickey
Dickey v. Hurlburt
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Murray, J.
Heydenfeldt, J., concurred.
This was a proceeding by mandamus in the Court below, to compel the county officers of Sutter County, to open their offices and transact the business of said county, at the town of Nicolaus. No exception has been taken to the form of the remedy, and the proceeding seems to be of an amicable character, to determine the legal seat of justice of Sutter County.
The Act of 1850, “ to provide for the permanent location of seats of justice,” fixed the county seat of Sutter, at Oro,—the Act of 1851, entitled “An Act to divide the State into Counties, etc.,” removed the seat of justice to Nicolaus. The Act of 1854, entitled “An Act amendatory of an Act to provide for the permanent location of seats of justice of the several counties of the State, passed April 11th, 1850,” provides that, “ whenever the inhabitants of any county of this *344 State desire to remove the seat of justice of the county from the place where it is fixed by law or otherwise, they may present a petition to the County Judge, praying such removal, and an election shall be held to determine to which place such removal shall be made.” The Act containing other provisions as to the votes…
Concurring Opinion
Heydenfeldt, J.
I concur in the reasoning and conclusions of the Chief Justice, but am of opinion that, by the Constitution of this State, the Legislature must fix the seats of justice, or places of hold *345 ing Court, and cannot delegate the power to any other body, or to a decision by popular vote; and therefore I place my concurrence in the judgment upon that ground.