Globe Cotton Oil Mills v. Zellerbach
GLOBE COTTON OIL MILLS, Petitioner, v. I. ZELLERBACH Et Al., Members of the Fish and Game Commission, Etc., Respondents
- Area
- civil
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
THE COURT.
Upon submission of the cause in open court the Chief Justice announced the decision of the court as follows:
The petitioner, owning and operating a fish reduction plant at Terminal Island, San Pedro Harbor, seeks a writ *277 of mandate to compel the respondent Fish and Game Commission to set for hearing and to act on the application filed with the Commission by petitioner for a permit authorizing it to use in its plant the quantity of fish designated in the application, for the purposes therein specified. The Commission has refused to entertain jurisdiction of the application upon the ground that it is a nonjudicial body, and that to act as requested by the petitioner would be to exercise judicial functions. In assuming this position the respondent relies upon Van Camp Sea Food Co.
v. Fish & Game Com., 75 Cal. App. 764 [243 Pac. 702], in which it was held that a Commission like the Fish and Game Commission, which is one having a state-wide jurisdiction, as distinguished from a local board, cannot be invested with judicial functions, for the reason that, “except for local purposes,” section 1 of article VI of the constitution confines all judicial power to certain specified courts.
This court is of the view, however, that, admitting that the Fish and Game Commission cannot be granted any power which constitutionally belongs exclusively to the judicial department of the state government, the granting of power to hold hearings and determine facts incidental to the regulation of fish and game, and to the granting of permits to take and use fish, is valid as an administrative or regulatory power, and in nowise transgresses upon the exclusive functions of the judicial department.
Let the writ of mandate issue as prayed for.
Cites, in this corpus
- Van Camp Sea Food Co. v. Fish & Game Commission Docket No. 5223. · 1925-12-23
Cited by
- Laisne v. California State Board of Optometry L. A. 17578 · 1942-03-16
- Bodinson Manufacturing Co. v. California Employment Commission Sac. 5407 · 1941-02-07
- Ray v. Parker L. A. 17207 · 1940-03-30
- Jersey Maid Milk Products Co. v. Brock L. A. 16986 · 1939-06-08
- Standard Oil Co. v. State Board of Equalization S. F. 15528 · 1936-06-23
- Agricultural Prorate Commission v. Superior Court L. A. 15471 · 1936-02-29
- People v. Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Docket No. 4753. · 1932-10-17
- F.E. Booth Co., Inc. v. Zellerbach Docket No. 7286. · 1929-12-20