Williams v. Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County
THOMAS H. WILLIAMS v. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ross (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 — Ross
Ross, J.:
By § 3447 of the Political Code the petition for the formation of the swamp land district in question was required to “be published for four weeks next preceding the hearing thereof,” in some newspaper, etc. And § 3258 of the same code declares: “A week consists of seven consecutive days.”
It is obvious that the petition could not be published for four weeks next preceding its hearing, unless it was published for four consecutive weeks. And inasmuch as the petition could not be published for four consecutive weeks, unless it was published at least once a week for that period, and since the statute defines a week to be seven consecutive days, it necessarily results that it could not be published for four weeks next preceding its hearing unless it was published at least once every seven days for the period of four weeks next preceding the hearing. Whether a publication once a week for the time mentioned when made in a newspaper published oftener than that, is sufficient under the statute, need not be determined in this case, since it appears from the findings of the court below that there were two intervals of more than *239seven consecutive days in the four weeks next preceding the day fixed for hearing the petition, in which there was no publication of the petition.
The statutory publication was one of the jurisdictional steps in the proceedings, and as the petition in question was not published in accordance with the requirement of the statute, all of the subsequent proceedings were invalid.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
McKinstry, J., and McKee, J., concurred.
Cited by
- County of Los Angeles v. Payne Docket No. 5500. · 1927-04-06
- Fostler v. Los Angeles L. A. No. 4535. · 1918-11-18
- Seccombe v. Roe Civ. No. 1302. · 1913-05-19
- Winkler v. Jerrue Civ. No. 1174. · 1912-12-09
- Brandt v. Krogh Civ. No. 740. · 1910-08-08
- Reclamation District No. 765 v. McPhee Civ. No. 639. · 1910-05-09
- People v. Reclamation District No. 136 Sac. No. 238 · 1898-07-23