Meyer v. State Land Settlement Board

While this action is before us upon appeal, we have here only to consider the petition of the defendant and appellant for a writ of supersedeas pending appeal.

The record shows that in the above-entitled action a judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff in the trial court for the sum of $9,500 and costs, from which judgment the defendant has appealed. Not having given any stay bond, the plaintiff took out and placed in the hands of the sheriff of Butte County an execution, under which the sheriff proceeded to levy upon certain lands described in the petition, and also proceeded to serve a garnishment upon the First National Trust and Savings Bank of Chico, purporting to levy upon all moneys, effects and credits in said bank under the control of the State Land Settlement Board, the levy and garnishment herein referred to being made upon the theory that the lands described and the moneys referred to were subject to execution. In the matter now before us it is urged by the petitioner that under the provisions of section 1058 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no undertaking to stay execution in this action is requisite, and further, that the properties referred to belong to the state of California, and therefore are not subject to execution.

An answer to these questions requires a resume of the acts of the legislature relative to the State Land Settlement Board, and the purposes for which the board was created.

The act of the legislature approved June 1, 1917 (Stats. 1917, p. 1566, Act No. 8008, Deering’s General Laws), sets forth in the first section that the land settlement problem is of great importance to the welfare of the people of the state of California; that it is the purpose of the act to improve the general economic and social conditions of agricultural settlers within the state. This act was amended from time to time, but the essential purposes so declared have remained unchanged by any of the subsequent enactments.

Section 3 of the act sets forth that “The State Land Settlement Board, hereafter called ‘The Board,’ shall constitute a Body Corporate with the right, on behalf of the State, to hold property, receive and request donations, sue and be sued, and all other rights provided by the Constitution and laws of the State of California as belonging to Bodies Corporate.”

The different sections of the act then provide for carrying the same into execution relative to the selection of lands, purchase of lands, sale of lands, etc., setting forth in great detail all of the acts which The Board so created was empowered tó perform.

Then follows section 25, making appropriation of the sum of $260,000, out of any moneys of the state treasury, not otherwise appropriated. This section contains the following: “Of this amount the sum of $250,000 shall constitute a revolving fund to be known as ‘The Land Settlement Fund,’ which is calculated to be returned to the state with interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum within a period of fifty years from the date of the passage of this act”; etc.

By an act of the legislature approved May 16, 1927 (Stats. 1927, p. 943), the position of all the officers of the State Land .Settlement Board was abolished, and by section 361f of the Political Code, it was provided that the Department of Agriculture should succeed to, and was vested with all the duties, powers, purposes, responsibilities and jurisdiction of the State Land Settlement Board, and of the several members, officers, deputies and employees thereof. It was further provided that all the duties, responsibilities and powers that had theretofore devolved upon the State Land Settlement Board were transferred to the Department of Agriculture. This section contains, in addition to what

Section 361e of the Political Code for the purposes of carrying out the functions and completing the work of the State Land Settlement Board, specified that the board should thereafter consist of three members, to wit: the director of agriculture, state engineer, and the director of finance of the state of California, all acting ex officio.

Section 36If, to which we have referred, was again ■ amended by an act of the legislature, approved May 20, 1929 (Stats. 1929, p. 677). Likewise, section 361e of the Political Code was amended at the same time so as to provide that thereafter the persons having charge of the state land settlement affairs should be the director of finance, the director of public works and the director of agriculture, all acting ex officio. This act has in view the closing up of the business affairs of the State Land Settlement Board.

Section 4 of the original act (Stats. 1919, p. 839, sec. 2) provided for the State Land Settlement Board acquiring property for the state, the language of the section, in this particular, reading: “For the purposes of this act, the Board may acquire, on behalf of the state, by purchase, gift, or the exercise of the power of eminent domain,” etc.

By the acts referred to, and especially section 361f, supra, at the time of the beginning of this action, the term “State Land Settlement Board” was defined to be the Department of Agriculture, and the use of those words would be held to be the same and mean the same as the words “Department of Agriculture.” In other words, the use of the expression “.State Land Settlement Board” legally meant the Department of Agriculture. From this it follows that the title in this action, using the State Land Settlement Board, must be held to be the same as though the title read “Department of Agriculture,” and of which, so far as the functions of the State Land Settlement Board were to be performed, devolved upon, three state officers, to wit, the director of public works, the director of finance and the director of agriculture. Section 4 of the act, as we have shown, provided for the acquiring of property in behalf of

In addition to the original appropriation made by the legislature, the record shows that large sums of money have been advanced under successive acts of the legislature, from time to time, and that all of the money entering and invested in the enterprise came from funds, so far as the record shows, belonging to the state of California. That no other than the state of California has any ownership in the

We may now consider the provisions of section 1058 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That section reads: “In any civil action or proceeding where the state or the people of the state is a party-plaintiff, or any state officer in his official capacity, or on behalf of the state, or any county, city and county, city or town, is a party-plaintiff or defendant, no bond, written undertaking or security can be required of the state or the people thereof, or of any officer thereof, or of any county, city and county, city of town, but on complying with the other provisions of this code, the state or the people thereof, or any state officer acting in his official capacity have the same rights, remedies and benefits as if the bond, undertaking or security were given and approved, as required by this code.” As we have seen, the state is the real party in interest in this action. It is the state’s property only that is involved. And as we have further seen, even though the title of this action reads against the State Land Settlement Board, it is in law and in fact against the Department of Agriculture. In other words, against the state of California, by and through its Department of Agriculture; and as we have further seen, is represented, for the purposes of the act in question, by three state officers, and their acting, by virtue of their official capacity, on behalf of the state. The State Land Settlement Board, as a corporate entity, is not acting at all; as a corporate entity, its functions are ended, save and except as the requirements of the several acts necessitate the continuance of the legal fiction in order that the agricultural adventure of the state may be brought to a close. Even the name ‘ ‘ Land Settlement Board” has been, by legislative act, transmuted into the meaning of “Department of Agriculture.” The officers of the State Land Settlement Board no longer exist. State officers only, in their official capacity as ex officio, are administering the affairs of the business herein referred to, and are doing so in behalf of the state. While the sec

By virtue of the different provisions of the acts of the legislature to which we have referred, three state officers are, in fact, acting in their official capacity in behalf of the state. They are acting under the legal designation of the Department of Agriculture, which includes the title used in this cause, and these three state officers are acting as fully and completely, under the designation of “Department of Agriculture,” as though they appeared in their individual names. In this particular the law will regard the substance of the controversy. The fact that state property alone is involved, and the fact that officers of the state are acting in behalf thereof, even though the designation does not reveal the true identities, does not render section 1058 of the Code of Civil Procedure inapplicable. We see no escape from the conclusion that section 1058 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be construed as applying to actions such as are here presented, and that no stay bond is necessarv.

There is a further reason why the writ of supersedeas should be issued in this case. The existence of the levy and the garnishment tends to hinder and embarrass the Department of Agriculture in the administration and disposal of property belonging to the state. In an elaborate argument the respondent has set forth numerous authorities to the effect that property held by corporations and used in a proprietary capacity may be levied upon and sold under execution. The basis for this argument is found in 23 C. J. 355, section 105, where the rule relied upon is stated as follows: “Where property of a municipal or other public corporation is sought to be subjected to execution to satisfy judgments recovered against such corporation, the question as to whether such property is leviable or not is to be determined by the usage and purposes for which it is held. The rule is that property held for public uses, such as public buildings, streets, squares, parks, promenades, wharves,

Similar questions have been presented and decided adversely to the respondent’s contention, both by the Supreme Court, and. by the District Court of Appeal of this state. In San Francisco Sav. Union v. Reclamation Dist., 144 Cal. 639 [ 79 Pac. 374 ], where it was sought to enforce a judgment against the reclamation district by execution, it was held that such proceeding was inadmissible, and that the only remedy was by way of mamdamus to require the levy of an assessment.

In People v. Honey Lake Valley Irr. Dist., 77 Cal. App. 367 [ 246 Pac. 819 , 821], this court, speaking through Presiding Justice Pinch, said: “Had the appellants been given judgment in this action, such judgment could not be enforced by an execution against the district, but only by a. suit in mandamus against the Board of Supervisors to compel the levying of an assessment to raise money with which to pay their claims.” (Citing authorities.)

Here, again, we may refer to the case of State Land Settlement Board v. Henderson, supra, wherein it is held that the property referred to in the land settlement acts which we have cited is state property. The reasoning of that case is full and complete, and is decisive as to the ownership ' of the property involved herein.

Without further citation of authorities, we are satisfied that the petition of the defendant and appellant should be granted, and a writ of supersedeas issued herein as prayed for. And it is so ordered.

Thompson (R. L.), J., and Finch, P. J., concurred.