From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ex parte Cox

Supreme Court of California
Jan 12, 1883
63 Cal. 21 (Cal. 1883)

Summary

In Ex parte Cox, 63 Cal. 21, it appeared that the petitioner had been convicted of a misdemeanor, consisting of a violation of one of the rules and regulations of the board of state viticultural commissioners.

Summary of this case from Ex parte McNulty

Opinion

         COUNSEL:

         Young & Young, for Petitioner.

         W. A. Anderson, W. J. Tuska, S. H. Dwinelle, contra.


         OPINION

         In Bank

         PER CURIAM.

         -- The petitioner was convicted of a misdemeanor, consisting of the violation of a rule and regulation of the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners. The powers attempted to be exercised by the officers and commissioners are specified in the Act of March 4, 1871. (Stats. 1881, p. 51.)

         The act declares that the officer shall have power, subject to the approval of the board, to declare and enforce rules and regulations of the nature of quarantine, to govern the manner of, and restrain or prohibit the importation into the State and the distribution and disposal within the State, of infected vines, cuttings, and empty fruit boxes, etc.; the act also declares that a willful violation of the quarantine regulations of the board shall be a misdemeanor.

         For the purpose of local legislation, legislative functions may be conferred upon and exercised by municipal corporations; but the act before us is in no sense a conferring of powers for municipal purposes. The legislature had not authority to confer upon the officer or board the power of declaring what acts should constitute a misdemeanor. The legislative power of the State is vested in the Senate and Assembly. (Const. art. iv., § 1.) That power could not, as to the case before us, be delegated to the officer or board. The act before us does not say it shall be unlawful to import, distribute, or dispose of infected articles, but it attempts to confer upon the officer and board the power to so declare. (Cooley on Const. Lim. p. 141, and cases cited.)

         The petitioner is discharged.


Summaries of

Ex parte Cox

Supreme Court of California
Jan 12, 1883
63 Cal. 21 (Cal. 1883)

In Ex parte Cox, 63 Cal. 21, it appeared that the petitioner had been convicted of a misdemeanor, consisting of a violation of one of the rules and regulations of the board of state viticultural commissioners.

Summary of this case from Ex parte McNulty
Case details for

Ex parte Cox

Case Details

Full title:EX PARTE JOHN COX ON HABEAS CORPUS

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jan 12, 1883

Citations

63 Cal. 21 (Cal. 1883)

Citing Cases

Ex parte McNulty

The contention that the police court of San Francisco, in which the prosecution was commenced, had no…

Board of Harbor Commissioners of Port of Eureka v. Excelsior Redwood Co.

The legislature cannot confer upon the harbor commissioners the power to legislate, or to create a…