McGivney

McGivney v. Pierce

Good Law
1890 Cal. LEXIS 1106·87 Cal. 124·25 P. 269
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 15, 1890No. 12271California475 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

The appellant inaugurated a contest in the superior court of Alameda County for the office of councilman of the city council of Oakland, under sections 1111 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent demurred, upon the ground of want of jurisdiction; and the court sustained the demurrer, and entered judgment dismissing the contest. From said judgment this appeal is taken.

The judgment was rendered upon the ground that the act reincorporating the city of Oakland, which was enacted in March, 1854, gave to the common council of Oakland exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine an election contest such as is involved in this proceeding. Waiving the question whether the language of the charter is broad enough to include the subject-matter of the present litigation, and waiving the constitutional question as to the authority of the legislature to grant such judicial power to the common council, it is clear, to our *125 minds, that the sections of the code above referred to, which were enacted long after the charter, necessarily repeal the provision of the charter here invoked. Section 1111 provides that “ any elector of a county, city and county, city, or of any…

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.