Board of Sup'rs of Nevada County v. Superior Court, Nevada County

• Decision Date: 01 May 1957
• Citation: 310 P.2d 37,150 Cal.App.2d 618
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF the COUNTY OF NEVADA, Curtis Clark, John L. Frank, Guy Robinson, Henry G. Loehr and J. L. Coughlin, as Supervisors of the County of Nevada, State of California, Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF The State of CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR The COUNTY OF NEVADA, and James Snell, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Nevada, Respondents. Civ. 9243.

Page 37

310 P.2d 37

150 Cal.App.2d 618

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF the COUNTY OF NEVADA, Curtis Clark, John L. Frank, Guy Robinson, Henry G. Loehr and J. L. Coughlin, as Supervisors of the County of Nevada, State of California, Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF The State of CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR The COUNTY OF NEVADA, and James Snell, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Nevada, Respondents.

Civ. 9243.

District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

May 1, 1957.

Vernon Stoll, Nevada County Dist. Atty., William J. Cassettari, Chief Deputy Dist. Atty., Grass Valley, for petitioners.

Albert L. Johnson, Nevada City, for real party in interest.

PEEK, Justice.

The present controversy stems from action taken by the board of supervisors of Nevada County by which an election was held and candidates elected and certified to the county board of education of said county pursuant to the recommendations of the county committee on school district organization. Education Code, §§ 301-305. Thereafter one Robert Wallace, Jr., filed in the superior court of said county his petition for a writ of mandate, number 11331, wherein he sought (1) an order commanding the board of supervisors to 'rectify' the election by which members of the board of education were selected; (2) review of the proceedings calling for the election; and (3) an order prohibiting the persons elected from acting in the official capacity of board members. Neither the board of education as such nor its individual members were named as parties in said proceeding. The demurrer of the board of supervisors upon the ground that the petition failed to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action was overruled. The board of supervisors thereupon answered, denying generally all of the allegations of the petition, and shortly thereafter filed in this court the present petition for prohibition. It is alleged therein that mandamus, review and prohibition are not proper proceedings to contest an election or try title to the right to hold public office, and that Wallace has a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law in quo warranto.

We assume that when Wallace prayed for a writ of mandamus against the board of supervisors commanding them to 'rectify the invalid election' whereby the members of the county board of education were elected, he meant that the office to which the persons were so elected should be declared to be vacant and a new election held. Our courts, in accordance with the general rule, have consistently...