gno.law

Dysart v. Daugherty

California Court of Appeal · Civ. 11133 · 1936-11-16 · Published · 17 Cal. App. 2d 525 · 62 P.2d 612 · 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 608

S. DYSART, Appellant, v. EDWIN M. DAUGHERTY, Commissioner of Corporations, Respondent

Area
civil
Panel
Crail (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Crail

CRAIL, P. J.

Appellant, who was the petitioner in the trial court, sought a writ of review for the purpose of determining the validity of an order of the Commissioner of Corporations. A general demurrer to the petition was sustained without leave to amend and judgment entered accordingly. This is an appeal from said judgment.

A writ of review will lie only to review the exercise of judicial functions. (Sec. 1068, Code Civ. Proc.) The legislature is without power, in the absence of a constitutional provision authorizing same, to confer judicial functions upon the respondent or any other state-wide administrative agency of similar character. (Constitution of California, art. VI, sec. 1.) Our courts have determined that the Commissioner of Corporations is authorized to exercise discretionary administrative functions but is without authority to exercise judicial functions.

(Dominguez Land Corp.

v. Daugherty, 196 Cal. 468, 482 [238 Pac. 703];

Schwab-Wilson etc. Corp.

v. Daugherty, 15 Cal. App. (2d) 701 [59 Pac. (2d) 1057];

Standard Oil Co.

v. State Board of Equalization, 6 Cal. (2d) 557 [59 Pac. (2d) 119].) It necessarily follows that this proceeding for a writ of review lacks an essential element and that the demurrer was properly sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

Wood, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by