John Hoagland v. City of Sacramento

The District Court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the plaintiff’s complaint and in entering judgment in favor of the *143 defendant, because the act entitled “An Act to enable John Hoagland and others to sue the City of Sacramento,” set out in the complaint upon which this action is founded, is a valid act, founded in manifest equity, and is a legitimate exercise of legislative authority, its purpose being to provide a legal remedy to enable the plaintiff to enforce a just and equitable claim (not before enforceable in the Courts) against a municipal corporation for damage caused by a public worlc, constructed for the exclusive benefit of the corporation. (See Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, 232, 233, and 361, and authorities cited in note 1; Cooley on Taxation, 91, 104, 105, 110, 111, and 479; Sharpless v. Mayor &c. of Philadelphia, 21 Pa. St. 147; Town of Guilford v. Sups, of Chenango County, 13 N. Y. 143 ; Creighton v. San Francisco, 42 Cal. 450 ; Sinton v. Ashbury, 41 Cal. 525 ; Beals v. Amadore, 35 Cal. 625 ; Blanding v. Burr, 13 Cal. 343 .)

The enabling act, in all its provisions, is supported by reason and justice, by the letter and spirit of the State…