Court Opinion

ID: 9711135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:24:58.565309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:02.461052
License: Public Domain

*355On Petition for Rehearing
KNUDSON, Judge.
The City has filed a petition for rehearing on the ground that the Court in its opinion considered only whether the Annexation Review Commission had jurisdiction to act in the first place, not whether it exceeded its jurisdiction when it did act.
The City contends that the Annexation Review Commission has not followed the guidelines laid down by the legislature, and that such failure to follow the guidelines is an act in excess of jurisdiction and a failure to regularly pursue its authority.
The City submits that we are in error in our statement that “the manner of computing the number of signers * * * is not a jurisdictional question.” The City argues that “It may not be a jurisdictional question on the point of the jurisdiction and authority of the Annexation Review Commission to act originally but it goes to the question of acts in excess of jurisdiction and lack of regular pursuit of authority. If less than one-fourth of the owners protest, the territory automatically becomes a part of the city. Failure to follow this yardstick is a deliberate act in excess of jurisdiction and a failure to pursue authority regularly.”
But we have said that the clause in § 32-33-09 “whether the inferior court, tribunal, board, or officer has pursued regularly the authority of such court, tribunal, board, or officer” is construed as having substantially the same meaning as the clause in § 32-33-01, “has exceeded the jurisdiction of such officer, board, tribunal, or inferior court.” Baker v. Lenhart, 50 N.D. 30, 19S N.W. 16.
Therefore the review by the Court under § 32-33-09 is confined only to the determination of the question of the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal. It brings up no issue of law or fact not involved in the question of jurisdiction. Under no circumstances can the review be extended to the merits.
In the Baker v. Lenhart case we said that:
* * * [U]nder a statute like ours the court may not consider the sufficiency of the evidence or review the findings made by the inferior tribunal except for the sole purpose of determining whether such tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction.
In our original opinion we said that the review upon the writ of certiorari is confined only to determine the jurisdiction of the Annexation Review Commission. Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine the controversy.
The jurisdiction of the Annexation Review Commission to act in an annexation proceeding is conferred upon it by § 40 — 51— 10, whereby any person feeling aggrieved by the action of the city commission in extending the limits of the city may appeal to the Annexation Review Commission. And under § 40-51-11 the Annexation Review Commission shall hear the evidence for or against such annexation and render its decision accordingly.
The Annexation Review Commission having acquired jurisdiction, it had the power and authority to determine the question whether the annexation should be made. It was empowered by statute to hear the evidence for and against the annexation and to render its decision accordingly.
Here, at the hearing before the Annexation Review Commission, evidence was offered and received as to the area and extent of the territory proposed to be annexed, of the number and names of the owners, and of the taxable or non-taxable character of the various tracts of land therein. Thereafter, the Annexation Review Commission made its decision that more than three-fourths of the owners had signed the protest and the annexation failed.
The legislature has not provided for an appeal from the decision of the Annexation Review Commission, and the City here seeks to have the court review the decision *356in a certiorari proceeding by alleging that the Annexation Review Commission exceeded its jurisdiction and failed to regularly pursue its authority by making a determination that more than three-fourths of the owners had signed the protest, and that only the owners of taxable land were eligible to protest.
We have already said that the Annexation Review Commission had jurisdiction to act in an annexation matter. It had the authority and power to hear and determine.
Jurisdiction relates to the power of the tribunal, and not to the rights of the parties, Dahlgren v. Superior Court, 8 Cal.App. 622, 97 P. 681. “The test of the jurisdiction of a court is whether or not it had power to enter upon the inquiry; not whether its conclusion in the course of it was right or wrong.” Board of Com’rs of Lake County v. Platt, 8 Cir., 79 F. 567, 25 C.C.A. 87, 49 U.S.App. 216. “Excess of jurisdiction is to be distinguished from errors of law or of fact committed by the inferior tribunal within the limits of its jurisdiction. Such an error does not constitute an excess of jurisdiction. If a court acts in the exercise of its lawful jurisdiction, and not in excess of such jurisdiction, the mere fact that its conclusion is wrong does not make its action an excess of jurisdiction.” 4 California Juris, pp. 1036, 1037.
Baker v. Lenhart, 50 N.D. 30, 34, 195 N.W. 16, 17.
Whether the Annexation Review Commission committed errors of law or of fact in the exercise of its authority cannot be considered in this certiorari proceeding; and no matter how erroneous the decision may be, even on the face of the record, the reviewing court has no power to change, annul or reverse it in a civil proceeding in certiorari. 4 Cal.Jur. pp. 1106, 1107, cited in Baker v. Lenhart, supra.
We adhere to our original opinion, and the petition for rehearing is denied.
TEIGEN, C. J., and ERICKSTAD and STRUTZ, JJ., concur.
PAULSON, J., not being a member of the Court at the time of submission of this case, did not participate.