California Toll Bridge Authority v. Kuchel

• Citation: 251 P.2d 4,40 Cal.2d 43
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Decision Date: 11 December 1952
• Parties: CALIFORNIA TOLL BRIDGE AUTHORITY et al. v. KUCHEL. Sac. 6319.

Page 4

251 P.2d 4

40 Cal.2d 43

CALIFORNIA TOLL BRIDGE AUTHORITY et al. v. KUCHEL.

Sac. 6319.

Supreme Court of California, in Bank.

Dec. 11, 1952.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 8, 1953.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., E. G. Funke, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ralph W. Scott, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Robert E. Reed, Sacramento, for petitioners.

John W. Collier, City Atty., Deniel J. McNamara, Deputy City Atty., Oakland, Thomas M. Carlson, City Atty., Richmond, Fred C. Hutchinson, City Atty., Berkeley, J. P. Clark, City Atty., and J. Frank Coakley, Dist. Atty., Oakland, as amici curiae on behalf of petitioners.

Ralph I. McCarthy and Lloyd C. Graybill, Sacramento, for respondent.

Dion R. Holm, City Atty., A. Dal Thomson, Public Utilities Counsel, Walker Peddicord and William F. Bourne, Deputy City Attys., San Francisco, for intervener.

SHENK, Presiding Justice.

The California Toll Bridge Authority seeks a writ of mandate to compel the respondent State Controller to audit and approve a claim for printing costs in connection with the Authority's resolutions to issue bonds to finance the construction of additional approaches to the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. The Director of the Department of Public Works is also a petitioner. An alternative writ issued. The respondent filed a demurrer and an answer to the petition. The City and County of San Francisco intervened by way of demurrer and answer to oppose the granting of the writ. The City's petition in intervention also shows that on June 17th, 1952, it filed in the Superior Court a complaint to enjoin the Authority from issuing and selling bonds for the construction of additional approaches. The petitioners have interposed a demurrer to the City's petition. Other Bay cities and counties have filed briefs in support of the petitioners' application for the writ.

Mandamus lies to compel performance of official duty in connection with the issuance of duly authorized bonds of the Authority. §§ 1085, 1086, Code Civ.Proc.; California Toll Bridge Authority v. Kelly, 218 Cal. 7, 21 P.2d 425. The injunction action brought by the city is not an adequate remedy to the same end. That action looks to the enjoining of the bond issue. The city claims the appropriateness and adequacy of that action merely for the purpose of trying factual issues, if any such issues are necessary to be determined.

As noted, the respondents and the intervenor filed both demurrers and answers. The demurrers admit the alleged facts and place in issue the existence of the statutory power of the Authority ti issue the bonds here in question. The answers purport to raise factual issues by questioning the nature of the proposed constructions as 'additional approaches.' If the Authority does not have the power invoked by it under existing statutes, the questions raised by the answers become immaterial.

The demurrers also necessarily admit the salient historical facts.

The California Toll Bridge Authority Act was adopted in 1929, Stats. 1929, p. 1489, an amendments, now §§ 30000-30506 of the Streets and Highways Code, Stats. 1947, ch. 176, p. 702. That general act declares the state policy (§ 30001) to acquire and own all toll bridges situated upon or along any of the highways of the State, and ultimately to eliminate all toll charges. Thereby the California Toll Bridge Authority was created to carry out the legislative objective. The Authority was vested with the general power to construct 'toll bridges or other highway crossings', to issue bonds to provide for the cost of construction, and to retire the bonds from bridge revenues. §§ 30000-30506, Streets and Highways Code.

By Statutes of 1933, chapter 5, p. 11, the legislature made appropriations to the State Department of Public Works from the State Highway Fund of annual sums up to an aggregate of $6,600,000 for the acquisition and construction of approaches to the proposed San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. By Statutes of 1933, chapter 9, p. 16, the Department of Public Works was authorized and directed to construct or cause to be constructed designated approaches to the Bay Bridge. The enactment described generally specified approaches to be constructed from the Westerly and the Easterly ends of the Bay Bridge. These were to be connected with the streets and highways when the Bridge was ready for use. The construction of 'said approaches' was to begin on the sale of the first block of bonds issued for the construction of the Bridge under the 1929 act. The department was charged with the permanent duty to maintain and operate the bridge and approaches as a primary state highway. The 'cost of constructing the said approaches and of maintaining and operating the said toll bridge and approaches' was required to be paid by the Department of Public Works out of funds made available for such purpose other than the proceeds of bonds issued by the Authority for the construction of the bridge, and other than the tolls and revenues received from the use and operation of the bridge, so long as any bonds or other obligations issued by the Authority for bridge construction remained outstanding and unpaid. The department was authorized and directed to make expenditures for the operation and maintenance of 'said bridge and approaches' from money accruing in the State highway maintenance fund available for the widening, resurfacing and reconstruction of state highways, or any other fund made available for such purposes. At the same session of the legislature, Stats. 1933, ch. 24, p. 58, it was provided that when all bonds issued by the Authority for the construction of the bridge have been fully redeemed, paid and retired, the Authority should continue to fix and collect tolls on the Bay Bridge until all moneys appropriated by the State and expended from the State Highways Fund for the acquisition and construction 'of the highway approaches' have been fully repaid to the State.

The bridge and approaches were completed and opened to public traffic on November 12, 1936. In the 1947 codification, Stats. 1947, ch. 176, p. 702, chapters 9 and 24 of the 1933 statutes, insofar as they remained applicable, were included in the Streets and Highways Code as Sections 30600-30608. Section 30605 provides that the cost of 'constructing the approaches and of maintaining and operating the toll bridge and approaches' be paid by the department of public works out of funds made available other than the proceeds of bonds issued for the construction of the toll bridge and other than the tolls and revenues as long as any construction bonds are outstanding and unpaid, except that in a proceeding for refunding or retiring outstanding construction bonds the Authority may provide for the cost of operation of the Bridge and any additional bridge or other crossing from tolls and revenues. § 30222 applied all the benefits of the law to refunding bonds.

Section 30606 provides that the department of public works shall make expenditures 'for the operation and maintenance of the toll bridge and approaches' from the State Highway Fund, except that when thereafter the Authority provides for the payment of the cost of the operation of the bridge and any additional bridge or other highway crossing, from the tolls and revenues of the bridge and additional bridge or other crossing, the expenditure shall be made only for the purpose of the physical maintenance of the bridge and additional bridge or other crossing.

Section 30607 provides that after all bonds have been paid and retired, the Authority shall continue to fix and collect tolls on the bridge until all money that has been appropriated by the State and expended from the state highway fund 'for the acquisition and construction of the highway approaches leading to and upon the toll bridge at both the Alameda County and San Francisco ends thereof has been fully repaid to the State' and credited to the State Highway Fund. Reimbursement is provided to be made from surplus net revenues after all bond obligations have been fully redeemed and the bonds retired

Section 30608 states that in any proceeding after July 17, 1951, for the issue of new bonds for the purpose of refunding or retiring bonds outstanding, there be included bonds in an amount sufficient to repay to the State all money appropriated and expended from the State Highway Fund for 'the acquisition and construction of the highway approaches leading to and upon the toll bridge as described' in Chapter 9 of the 1933 Statutes, but not to exceed the sum of $6,600,000, repayment to be made to the State from the proceeds of the bonds and credited to the State Highway Fund.

The construction bonds issued by the Authority were refunded prior to 1951, that is, in 1944. On November 1, 1951, there remained outstanding and unpaid refunding bonds in the principal sum of $6,863,000. In that month by resolution and by subsequent supplementary resolution the Authority authorized the creation and issuance of bonds not to exceed $80,000,000 in Series A, B and C, with a final maturity date of March 1, 1973. Series A aggregating $21,000,000 provides for the call and redemption of the outstanding bonds and interest, for reimbursement to the State of the designated $6,600,000 advanced from the State Highway Fund for the construction of the approaches, and for the payment of expense of the issuance and sale of the Series A bonds and the redemption of the outstanding bonds. No question is raised concerning the validity of Series A bonds. They have been issued and sold. The State has been reimbursed for the advances from the State Highway Fund.

Each of the proposed B and C Series is in the principal sum of $25,000,000. They are to be secured by tolls in addition to the tolls collected for the operation of the bridge and necessarily the tolls collected for the retirement of the series A bonds. Proceeds from the sale of Series B are to be applied to the construction of proposed approaches on the east or Alameda...