In the Supreme Court of the State of California.

The People, by the relation of the Board of Supervisors of Solano County, upon notice thereof first given to the respondent, petitioned this Court to issue its peremptory writ of mandate to the Board of' Supervisors of Lake County to immediately proceed and act upon the matter of the location of a certain road described in the petition, and to declare said road a public highway, and open to travel as such, and that they maintain the same as such highway, as contemplated and required by the provisions of an Act of the Legislature, approved March 31st, 1866, entitled “ An Act providing for the location and survey of a public highway from Suisun City, in Solano County, to Knoxville, in Lake County, running through the Counties of Solano, Hapa, and Lake.” (See Stats. 1865-6.) The petition averred the due survey, location, and establishment of the road by the Viewers appointed by the legislative Act, and a report by them of their proceedings therein to the Board of Supervisors of Lake County, on the 11th day of May, 1866 ; and that in all other respects, averring particularly the acts performed, all the provisions of said Act had been complied with on the part of said Viewers, the People, and the Board of Supervisors of Solano County, to the end that said road be fully established and opened as a public highway. The petition further alleges:

“ That the Supervisors of Lake County did from time to time and at all times have refused and neglected to act upon said matter and to declare the road as viewed out a public highway, and have neglected and refused to open said road as by law required; that on the 19th day of June the Supervisors of Solano County,. this relator, and D. H. Hastings, appeared before the said Supervisors of Lake County, at a then called meeting of the Board, and requested then and there that they should proceed to act in said matter in accordance with said law.

“ Vet the said Supervisors of Lake County, for the purpose of defeating said law and of preventing the said County of Solano and this relator from deriving any advantage therefrom, then and there and ever since have and still do refuse to take any action therein, or in any manner to perform the duties required of them by said Act.”

The respondent demurred to the petition upon three grounds, which are stated in the opinion of the Court.