Lyon County times. [volume] (Silver City, Nev.) 1874-1907, 1884-12-13
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
The state Of Nevada, ex rel. Es-
meralda County, Petitioner, VS..
The District Court of the Third
Judicial District Of the state Of
Nevada, ct al, Respondents.
BY HAWLEY, C. il

A.
Petitioner claims that the Act annex.
ing a portion OF Esmeralda county to
Lyon county (Stat 1883, 9e) is uncon.
slnnaional,4 in this, that 1t imposes
.dAi,irs upon the District Judge (Sec. o.
that are not judicial in their mature, in
contravention of Art. Ill. of The State
Consll1ukion; that, inasnach as the
Boards OF County Commissioners failed
to act. within The time prescribed by
Section 2, The entire provisions of the
Act was absolutely null and void.
Respondents contend that if the
acts Conferred upon the District Judge,
by the SIKH section, are not judicial in
their naturesthey cannot be reviewed,
by this Courl, in this proceeding.
The language OF the statute relating
10 the writ Of certiorari Is clear and
plain, and fully sustains the position
coptended for by respondents.
"IhIs writ may be granted on appH-
cation by any Court Of this State, ex-
cept Justices, or Recorders or
Mayors Courl; the writ shall b: grant
ed la all Cases when all inferior tribunal,
board or officer, exercising judicial
functions, has exceeded the jurisdiction
Of such tribunal" ETC., & Comp. L.,
, 1879
The Act under consideration requires
the county OF Lyon 10 assume and pay a
portion oil the Indebtedness Of Esmer
aida county as ju,t and lair compen-
satlon tor the ,terrilory detached, and il
specially provides the meIhoi by VIII ch
the amount shall BE- asccrlained. The
a,certalnmvnl OF the amount does not
involve any examination Or weighing of
testimony, Or any determination oi any
prInciple oi-law, or the exercise Of any
diacretlon OF judgment. The Act pio-
vldes that ,lbe county OF Lyon shall
assume and pay 10 the county Of Es-
mcIalda, as lis poiiion OF the debt As.
sumed on The annexation OF the terri
tory detached by this Act, such an
equal and pfopoItionaIe amount of the
indebtedness of E,meralda county a.
the taxable properly in, such detached
and annexed territory, as shown by the
assessment roll OF E,mci aida county for
the year 1882, bears 10 the payment ot
The enure debt" tSeclion az
In performing this duly the District
Judge was not required 10 exercise any
Judicial functions. people vs.. Alameda
county, 20 cal, 24o.)
he duties peffoNned by the District
Judge IN pursuance to the statute, did
mol become Judicial acts merely be.
cause they were perIUlmcd by ju
dlclal officer. 1t has often been dc
ciIed that the action OF a judicial Off
Ger in regard TO matters which are ex.
ciusiyely executive or legislative in
their nature, even when The Act OF the
Legislature requiring such duties 10 be
performed Ia IN violation vi the constI-
tuuonal provision, cannoi be reviewed
by ccrlluran. Under the laws OF this
SAFE we are only authorized 10 review
The record any proceedings OF inferior
courts, officers or tribunals, acung IN a
Judicial capacity and exercising ju1icial
functions.
he acts requiIedlO be performed by
the District Judge, in the event OF the
Boards VI County Commissioners failing
10 agree, are no, OF such judicial ma.
ture or character as 10 authorize this
Court 10 review them on ccrloirari.
People vs.. Board Of Education, 81
cal, 81; Saline County VS.. Peutlon-
ers, IS Mo-, S.; People VS.. Supervisors,
As Barb, 2S4; People vs.. Bu,h 40
CAL. 34s; Spring Valley W. W. VS..
Bryan, 81 Cair, 1881
The writ should therefore BE- dis.
missed.
Ii is SO ordered. HAwLEy, c. J.
We concur: LEoNARD,
BELKNAP, j..