Fischer v. Shasta County

• Decision Date: 28 June 1956
• Citation: 46 Cal.2d 771,299 P.2d 222
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: William FISCHER, Plaintiff and Respondent. v. COUNTY OF SHASTA, a political subdivision of the State of California, O. M. Turner, Lee S. Foster, Alfred Meeker, Andrew T. Jessen, J. G. Chatham, as the Individual members of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Shasta, William F. Weber, as the Auditor of the County of Shasta, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., a corporation, Defendants and Appellants. Sac. 6472.

Page 222

299 P.2d 222

46 Cal.2d 771

William FISCHER, Plaintiff and Respondent. v. COUNTY OF SHASTA, a political subdivision of the State of California, O. M. Turner, Lee S. Foster, Alfred Meeker, Andrew T. Jessen, J. G. Chatham, as the Individual members of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Shasta, William F. Weber, as the Auditor of the County of Shasta, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., a corporation, Defendants and Appellants.

Sac. 6472.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

June 28, 1956.

Laurence J. Kennedy, Jr., and Randall J. Presleigh, Dist. Attys., Redding, Robert H. Gerdes, William S. Love, San Francisco, and Chenoweth & Leininger, Redding, for appellants.

Robert E. Reed and Warren P. Marsden, counsel, Dept, of Public Works, State of California, and William M. Siegel, Sacramento, as amici curiae, for appellants.

Daniel S. Carlton, Carlton & Shadwell and Robert A. Haughwout, Redding, for respondent.

McCOMB, Justice.

Plaintiff instituted an action in the superior court seeking (1) to enjoin defendant county and the board of supervisors from maintaining street lighting in Shasta County Road Maintenance District No. 1, and (2) to have declared illegal a contract between defendant county and defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company providing for the furnishing of lights in certain unincorporated communities of Shasta County.

The superior court found in favor of plaintiff and granted the relief prayed for. From this judgment defendants appeal.

The record discloses the following facts: Three communities are involved, the town of Central Valley, Project City and Pine Grove. Pine Grove is a subdivision adjacent to Highway No. 99, while Project City is at the junction of Highway No. 99 and Highway No. 209, which latter highway extends to Shasta Dam. Central Valley constitutes a town on and adjacent to Highway No. 209 and is between Highway No. 99 and Shasta Dam but a short distance from Project City.

Because of the necessity of lighting these communities along the two state highways and the county highways leading thereto, street lights were installed by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, hereinafter referred to as the 'power company,' and were maintained by voluntary contributions for a considerable period before the creation of the maintenance district.

The voluntary financing was unsatisfactory and it was deemed necessary to continue the street and highway lighting of the above-mentioned communities. Therefore, defendant board of supervisors established the Shasta County Road Maintenance District No. 1 under the provisions of section 1550.1 of the Streets and Highways Code. ^*

After the maintenance district was formed, the board of supervisors on April 2, 1953, entered into a contract with the power company to provide 32 lights in the district, to be paid for by the county of Shasta. The property owners in the district provided the maintenance fund by special taxes.

Approximately 19 of the 32 lamps here involved are located along or upon the two state highways. The remainder are on the streets or connecting county highways near the intersections thereof with the state highways. These 19 lights were installed under written encroachment permit consents of the Division of Highways.

The questions presented for determination are:

First: Can a county, through its board of supervisors, use the special road maintenance district procedure provided in section 1550.1 of the Streets and Highways Code for operating and maintaining a lighting system which embraces a state highway as well as county highways and streets in unincorporated communities within the county?

This question must be answered in the affirmative. The board of supervisors of a county may form a special road maintenance district in subdivided areas of the county wholly outside of incorporated cites. (Sts. & Hy.Code, §§ 1550.1, 1550.2, 1550.3.) The lighting of streets is included within the word 'maintenance' as used in section 1550.1 of the Streets and Highways Code. Section 27 of the code reads in part as follows: 'As used in the general provisions and in Divisions 1 and 2 of this code, 'maintenance' includes: * * * (e) Such illumination of streets, roads, highways and bridges which in the judgment of the body authorized to expend such funds is required for the safety of persons using the said streets, roads, highways and bridges.'

Plaintiff urges, however, that the word 'road' used in section 1550.1 of the Streets and Highways Code does not include a 'state highway.' This contention is contrary to the definition of the word as found in numerous authorities. The word 'road' is a generic term which includes highways, streets, public ways and thoroughfares.

Webster's New International Dictionary (2d ed. 1937), p. 2155, defines the word 'road' as: 'A place where one may ride; an open way or public passage for vehicles, persons, and animals; * * * Road is generally applied to a highway outside of an urban district, as distinct from a street, which is a highway in an urban district.'

Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1951), p. 1491, reads: 'Road. A highway.'

39 C.J.S. (1944), Highways, § 1, p. 915, reads: 'The term (highway) has been held synonymous with 'public road' and street."

In B. & H. Transportation Co. v. Johnson, 122 Cal.App. 451, at page 453, 10 P.2d 506, at page 507 the court said: 'Roads and highways are generic terms embracing all kinds of public ways, such as county and township roads, streets, etc.'

In San Francisco-Oakland Terminal Rys. v. County of Alameda, 66 Cal.App. 77, at page 81, 225 P. 304, at page 305 (hearing denied by the Supreme Court), the court said: 'A public way over unincorporated territory of a county is generally referred to as a highway or road.'

In People v. Odom, 19 Cal.App.2d 641, at page 650(8), 66 P.2d 206, at page 211, the court, quoting with approval from the Vehicle Code, § 81, said: "'Street' or 'highway' is a way or place of whatever nature open to the use of the public as a matter of right for purposes of vehicular travel."

To the same effect are: Johnston v. Wortham Machinery Co., 60 Wyo. 301, 151 P.2d 89, at page 91(2); Stedman v. Inhabitants of Southbridge, 34 Mass. 162, at page 165; Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Headley Good Roads Co., D.C., 283 F. 236, at page 237(1); Herbert v. City of Richland Center, 264 Wis. 8, 58 N.W.2d 461, at page 462(1, 2); Inhabitants of Windham v. Cumberland County Commissioners, 26 Me. 406, 409; Strange v. Board of Commissioners of Grant County, 173 Ind. 640, 91 N.E. 242, at page 247; Shannon v. Martin, 164 Ga. 872, 139 S.E. 671, at page 672, 54 A.L.R. 1246; Washington County, Neb. v. Williams, 8 Cir., 111 F. 801, at page 808; People ex rel. Putnam v. Commissioners of Buffalo County, 4 Neb. 150, at page 158.

In view of the foregoing, the conclusion is inescapable that the word 'road' as used in section 1550.1 of the Streets and Highways Code should be given its ordinary meaning to include all highways, county or state. It is presumed that the Legislature knew the meaning of the language used in the statute and used it advisedly. Anderson v. I. M. Jameson Corp., 7 Cal.2d 60, at page 67, 59 P.2d 962. Therefore, when the Legislature used the term 'roads' in section 1550.1 and used the term 'county highways' in sections 1553 and 1554, which sections are contained in chapter 7, division 2, of the Streets and Highways Code, the presumption is that the Legislature used these terms advisedly and intended that each term should be given a different meaning. The presumption is not, as plaintiff contends, that when the Legislature used the term 'roads' it meant county roads only. If the Legislature had intended to limit the application of section 1550.1 to 'county roads' it would have so stated and not used the word 'road,' which includes every character of highway, including a state highway.

Second: Does the maintenance of street lights on state highways lie exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works?

This question must be answered in the negative. Plaintiff apparently has abandoned this contention, which appears in his complaint, for in his reply memo submitted to the trial court he concedes that a highway lighting district formed by the board of supervisors under part 4, division 14, of the Streets and Highways Code may maintain street lights on a state highway. On page 1, lines 24-30, he says: 'We wish to call to the Court's attention the fact that the Board of Supervisors could unquestionably and beyond dispute have contracted with defendant Pacific Gas & Electric Co. for lighting State Highways 209 and 99 within the Central Valley and Project City areas, if they so wished, by specifically creating a highway lighting district in accordance with the provisions of the Highway Lighting District Act.'

Having conceded that a maintenance district may maintain street lighting and that certain local taxing districts may maintain street lighting on state highways, plaintiff is left with the argument that the wrong local taxing district has been employed that this particular taxing district may maintain street lights on county highways but not on state highways. This argument is predicated upon reading something into the statute that is not expressed and that was not intended, that is, construing the term 'roads' as though it read 'county highways.'

It does not appear that the language of section 1550.1 of the Streets and Highways Code necessarily limits the use of district funds to roads that are otherwise eligible for county road moneys.

The use of the word 'additional' is not a limitation upon the use of the fund but rather a general description of it. Had the Legislature meant the funds to be purely supplemental it would have more specifically set forth the limitation.

Section 19002 of the Streets and Highways Code expressly provides that the Highway Lighting District Act is merely an alternative procedure for providing...