Hyperlawhypertext legal database Butte Co. v. Boydstun 2 Cal. Unrep. 699

← Cases

Butte Co. v. Boydstun

2 Cal. Unrep. 699 Court Cal. Decision date 1886-08-31 Docket No. 11,523 English

Contents

Majority

p. 699
BUTTE CO. v. BOYDSTUN.
No. 11,523;
August 31, 1886.
11 Pac. 781.

Headnote

Road—Authority of Supervisors—Province of Court.—Where the question of the necessity of taking land, for a road was settled by a board of supervisors, it is not a question for the court to pass on.[1]
J. C. Gray, F. C. Lusk and Hundley & Gale for respondent, Butte Co.; T. B. Reardon & Son for appellant, Boydstun.

There was no misjoinder of parties defendant. The complaint was sufficient. There was no error in striking out that portion of defendant’s, Boydstun’s, answer, which attempted to raise an issue as to the necessity of taking the land for the road. The question of necessity is settled by the board of supervisors, and, having so determined, it is not a question for the court to pass on: Tehama Co. v. Bryan, 68 Cal. 57 , 8 Pac. 673 .

Judgment affirmed.

Cases cited