People ex rel. Cochran v. Bd. of Educ. of Oakland

Good Law
54 Cal. 375
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1880No. 6,973California1,199 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Bankthornton, J.

On the 17th day of January, 1880, the Board of Education of the City of Oakland approved the report of a committee appointed by it in favor of the adoption of the Appleton series of Headers, to he used in the public schools of that city. It *376 appears from the petition of the relator that during the years 1873, 1874, and 1875, and ever since, the McGuffey series of Readers had been in use in the schools referred to.

On the 20th day of January, 1880, a writ of review on the petition aforesaid, issued from the Superior Court of the County of Alameda to the defendant Board, commanding it to certify to that Court a copy of the order and resolution of the 17th of January, 1880, and all its records, files, and proceedings in reference to the subject-matter of the order and resolution, to wit, to the proposed change of Readers, for review by that Court. On the return to the writ, the cause came on to be heard, and on the 3rd of February the Court rendered a judgment dismissing the writ, and affirming the action of the Board. The cause comes before us on appeal from the judgment.

The view which we take of this cause renders it unnecessary to decide any other than the question, whether…

dissent Opinion

McKee, J.

I dissent. Where a duty is imposed by law on an inferior tribunal, board, or officer, in the performance of which it has no discretion, its action in the performance of that duty is ministerial ; but where the law imposes a duty, in the performance of which the tribunal, board, or officer, can exercise judgment and discretion, and its action results in depriving a tax-payer of any of his rights of person or property, such action is, in its nature, quasi-judicial.

In the case in hand, the action of the Board of Education of the City of Oakland, of which the petitioner complains, is equivalent to the determination of a question of right and of property against him. Of right, because the petitioner, as a tax-payer of the city, is entitled to exercise the right of having his children educated at the public schools in the course of studies prescribed by the law; and of property, because if the action of the Board in changing the series of text-books used in the schools is in excess of the powers of the Board, he will be deprived of his money to purchase books for the use of his children in the schools, which are wholly unauthorized; and no man can be deprived of his property except…

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.