Case ID: cal-unrep_2/html/0699-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the COURT.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BUTTE CO. v. BOYDSTUN.
    No. 11,523;
    August 31, 1886.
    11 Pac. 781.
    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. 
    
    J. C. Gray, F. C. Lusk and Hundley & Gale for respondent, Butte Co.; T. B. Reardon & Son for appellant, Boydstun.
    
      
       Cited and approved in City of Santa Ana v. Harlin, 99 Cal. 540, 34 Pac. 225, the court saying that “the action of the council is final and conclusive of the necessity of the improvement, and the courts may not adjudicate the question of such necessity” in condemnation proceedings.
    
   By the COURT.

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.