McFadden

People ex rel. Graves v. McFadden

Good Law
1889 Cal. LEXIS 1046·81 Cal. 489·22 P. 851
Supreme Court of CaliforniaNovember 30, 1889Nos. 13349; 13460; 13461California3,943 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fox, J.

All of these cases involve, so far as the merits are concerned, precisely the same questions, and are *491 brought to accomplish the same end, and for the same relief; the three actions being brought to meet a doubtful question as to who were the proper parties defendant, under the circumstances, to an action brought for that purpose.

The cases are submitted together, ably argued on both sides, and a speedy determination desired upon the merits, regardless of the question of parties. The three cases cover all the possible necessary parties, and we shall proceed to consider the merits of the case as if it were but a single case, and not attempt to discuss the question as to who were necessary or proper parties.

The real question is, whether the act of the legislature of the state of California, approved March 11, 1889, entitled “An act to create the county of Orange, to define the boundaries thereof, to determine the county seat by an election, and to provide for its organization and election of officers, and to classify said county” (Stats. 1889, p. 123), is constitutional or not.

In each case demurrer to the complaint on the merits was sustained, and judgment of dismissal…

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.