Perry v. Gross (1916) · DecisionDepot

Perry v. Gross

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Apr 6, 1916 No. S. F. No. 7805. In Bank.Published

Before: Henshaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the constitutional requirement that referendum petition sections be filed "at the same time" does not require simultaneous filing at the same instant, but is satisfied if all sections are filed on the same day.

Issues

Whether the constitutional requirement that referendum petition sections be filed "at the same time" mandates that all sections be presented for filing at the exact same instant.

Disposition. Mandate issued

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is certainly a permissible construction to hold that “at the same time,” as used in the constitution, does not regard fractions of a day, and that filings of these petitions are good if made upon the same day.”

Synopsis

APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandate directed to the County Clerk of Alameda County.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

H. H. McPike, Clinton G. Dodge, and McPike & Murray, for Petitioner.

HENSHAW, J.

Petitioner having filed with the county clerk of the county of Alameda a referendum petition, thereafter and on the same day presented for filing another section of this petition, which section the county clerk refused to file. Mandate before this court was sought, compelling the county clerk so to do.

The question thus presented involves a construction of the language of the constitution which is as follows: “Each section of the petition shall be filed with the clerk or registrar of voters of the county or city and county in which it was circulated, but all said sections circulated in any county or city and county shall be filed at the same time.” (Const., art. IV, sec. 1.) Respondent contends that under this language his duty was plain; that the constitutional requirement that “all said sections . . . shall be filed at the same time” compels him to refuse to file a section presented after a petition had been filed, even though presented upon the same day.

In the construction of any written instrument, whether it be a constitution, a statute, or a contract, the most important duty of the court is directed to discovering the true meaning of the instrument. Its endeavor is directed first to attaining an understanding of the purpose and object of the writing, and next to the giving to that purpose and object the fullest effect compatible with the meaning of the language through which that purpose and object find expression. Words, phrases, and sentences therefore are construed in contemplation of these fundamental purposes and objects, and when

[470]

any doubt of their precise meaning is found to exist, aid in ■ arriving at that meaning is drawn from the general rules and principles governing the construction of such doubtful language.

The phrase here demanding construction is that which declares that all sections of the petition shall be filed

at the same time,

and the question before this court is not how lexicographers define the phrase, but rather what is the- true meaning of this phrase as thus employed in the constitution

Perry v. Gross

AI Brief

Synopsis

HENSHAW, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief