Wood v. Board of Election Commissioners
Before: McKee, McKinstry, Morrison, Myrick, Ross, Sharpstein
Synopsis
San Francisco—Construction of Statute.—The City and County of San Francisco is a continuation of the municipal corporation known as the City of San Francisco.
Id.-—Id.—Municipal Corporations.—Statutes of a general nature do not repeal by implication charters and special acts passed for the benefit of particular municipalities.
Held, accordingly, That the act of April 2d, 1866, as amended March 7 th, 1872, fixing the time for holding municipal elections in San Francisco, is not repealed by the amendment of March 7th, 1881, to the Political Code.
Id.—Id.—Id.—Amendments to the Political Code do not affect the acts or amendments to the acts enumerated in section 19 of said code.
Id.-—Id.—Id.—Constitutional Law.—The Constitution of 1879 does not repeal the said special acts fixing the time for municipal elections in San Francisco.
Id.—Id.—Id.—Id.—With the exception of Police Judge, Chief of Police, and Assessor, all of the elective officers of San Francisco must be elected at the time fixed by the acts of April 2d, 1866, and March 30th, 1872. Id.—Id.—Id.—Id.—Ross, J., concurring, was of opinion that the act of May 7th, 1881, can not operate to postpone the elections provided for in the acts of April 2d, 1866, and March 30th, 1872, because such operation would extend the terms of municipal officers, and therein violate section 9, article xi of the Constitution; but that the act of May 7th, 1881, applies to the City and County of San Francisco, and that its operation in providing for a municipal election in 1882 is constitutional and valid.
Id.—Id.—Id.—Id.—Myrick, J., and McKee, J., dissenting, were of the opinion that no election could be held in San Francisco until the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 1882.
Opinion — Sharpstein
Sharpstein, J.: The question which has to be determined in this case is whether the special act of April 2d, 1866, as amended March 7th, 1872, which fixes the times of holding elections for city and county officers of the City and County of San Francisco, is repealed by an amendment of the Political Code approved March 7th, 1881.
It is necesgary in the first place to ascertain and determine the political status of the “ City and County of San Francisco” under the Constitution and laws of this State. Section 1 of article i of the act of April 19th, 1856, commonly known as “ the Consolidation Act,” declares that, “ The corporation, or body politic and corporate, now existing and known as the City of San Francisco, shall remain and continue to be a body politic and corporate, in name and in fact, by the name of the City and County of San Francisco, and by that name shall have perpetual succession, may sue and defend in [563]all Courts and places, and in all matters and proceedings whatever, and may have and may use a common seal, and the same may alter at pleasure, and may purchase, receive,'hold, and enjoy real and personal property, and sell, convey, mortgage, and dispose of the same for the common benefit.” It then proceeds to define the boundaries of said city and county, and transfers all the property and effects of both the late city and county to the corporation formed by the consolidation of both.
Section 6 provides for the election of officers for said city and county, and fixes their terms of office. This section has been repeatedly amended, but the provisions of the preceding-sections have never been changed.
It is as clear as language could make it, that the present “City and County of San Francisco” is a continuation of the late municipal corporation known as the “ City of San Francisco.” Under the Consolidation Act and the acts amendatory thereof, it is nothing more nor less than a municipal corporation, and the question whether a general law affects it or not must be solved by rules which have been established for determining when a general law does or does not apply to a municipal corporation. Ordinarily, a general law, when it relates to a matter concerning which no provision is made in the charter of a municipal corporation or any special act relating exclusively thereto, applies to such corporation the same as to any other political subdivision of the State. But “ it is a principle of very extensive operation that statutes of a general nature do not repeal by implication charters and special acts passed for the benefit of particular municipalities.” (1 Dill. Mun. Corp., § 87.)
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)