People ex rel. Attorney-General v. Parvin (1888) · DecisionDepot

People ex rel. Attorney-General v. Parvin

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

California Supreme Court Jan 25, 1888 No. No. 11929Published

Before: McFarland, McKinstry, Temple

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the act of April 15, 1880, amending section 3481 of the Political Code, does not authorize the creation of a new, independent reclamation district within the boundaries of a district formed or reorganized under the act of 1868. The court concluded that the Political Code's reclamation provisions apply only to districts formed or reorganized under the Code itself.

Issues

Whether the act of April 15, 1880, is unconstitutional for failing to express its subject in its title.
Whether section 3481 of the Political Code authorizes the division of reclamation districts formed under the act of 1868.

Disposition. affirmed

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, and from an order refusing a new trial.

The action was brought by the people on the relation of the attorney-general, to obtain a judgment declaring that the defendants have usurped and exercised powers and franchises as trustees of a pretended Reclamation District No. 366, without authority of law. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The further facta are stated in the opinion of the court.

Opinion — McKinstry

McKinstry, J. Section 43 of the act of March 28, 1868, “to provide for the management and sale of lands belonging to the state, ” provided that swamp and over[551]flowed land districts, previously formed, could reorganize under that act in the manner therein set forth. In pursuance of the section, and on the tenth day of June, 1871, Reclamation District No. 3, which was originally formed June 20, 1861, was organized under the act of 1868.

The Political Code took effect January 1, 1873, when section 3481 of that code read as follows:—

“If the holders of certificates of purchase or patents for lands within any district formed prior to May 28, 1868, and in which the lands have not been reclaimed, desire to have their lands set off from such district, they must, in addition to the petition in section 3446, show to the board of supervisors that their lands are capable of an independent reclamation.” And April 15, 1880, section 3481 was amended (if the amendatory act is valid) so as to read:—

“If the owners of lands representing more than two thirds of any body of lands within any reclamation or swamp-land district, and in which the lands have not been reclaimed, desire to have the said body of lands set off from such district, they must, in addition to the petition required by section 3446, show to the board of supervisors that the said body of lands is capable of an independent reclamation.”

On the twenty-second day of July, 1880, the board of supervisors of Sacramento County, wherein the territory included in Reclamation District No. 3 is situated, by order set apart a portion of such territory as and for a separate and independent reclamation district, called, and to be called, Reclamation District No. 366.

This action is by the people of the state for a judgment declaring that the defendants have usurped and exercised powers and franchises as trustees of the pretended Reclamation District No. 366, without authority of law; that the said pretended district has no legal existence. Decree was entered for plaintiffs in the superior court.

It is contended by respondent that the Reclamation [552]

Related research

1. The Political Code constitutes a single statute, thus entitled: “Title of the act,—1. This act shall be known as the Political Code of the state of California.” Whether, under the present constitution, the legislature would have power to enact a law so generally entitled, is a very serious question. But under the constitution existing when the code was adopted, the title was sufficient, and the code continues in force. The section of the constitution, after providing as above quoted, proceeds: “No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its * title ’ (that is, by reference to its title alone); but in such case-the act revised or section amended shall be re-enacted, and published at length as revised or amended.” There is no question here but that section 3481 was “ re-enacted and published at length”; and the title of the act amended is very clearly referred to as the “Political Code.” With reference to a statute passed since the constitution of 1879 took effect, there can be no doubt that a section of such a statute—the statute itself being properly entitled—may be amended by referring, in the title of the amendment, to the title of the statute amended, and re-enacting the section as amended. If, in such case, the title of the original statute did not state its “subject,” both the statute and any amendment of it [553]would be void. But it is enough if the title of the statute is recited; it is not necessary that the subject of the particular section amended shall be stated in the title of the amendatory act. It is to be understood, of course, that-if any subject shall be embraced in a section of an act passed under the present constitution, which shall not be expressed in the title of the act, the section is void. (Art. 4, sec. 4.) It follows, also, that, under pretense of amending a particular section, the legislature cannot legislate upon a subject not embraced in the title of the original act. If it be said that the title of the amendatory act of April 15, 1880, does not express the subject, the reply is that the constitution does not require, in case of an amendment, that the subject shall be any more fully stated than it is stated in the valid statute amended.

People ex rel. Attorney-General v. Parvin

AI Brief

Synopsis

Opinion — McKinstry

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

Concurrence — Temple

Concurrence — McFarland

AI Brief