Home for Care of Inebriates v. Reis
Before: Harrison, Haven, McFarland, Sharpstein
Synopsis
Home for the Care of Inebriates — Recovery of Fines Paid to County Treasurer — Mandamus. —There is no law which specially enjoins it as a duty of the treasurer of the city and county of San Francisco, resulting from an office, trust, or station, to pay to the Home for the Care of the Inebriates of San Francisco the amount of any fines collected by the police courts and turned over to him, and mandamus will not lie to compel him to pay over to the Home the amount of any fines so collected, although the clerk of the police judge’s court may have turned over to the treasurer the moneys which he is enjoined by the act of March 17, 1876, to pay directly to the officers of the Home.
Id. — Payment of Fines for Drunkenness—Repeal of Statute. — The act of March 17, 1876 (Stats. 1875-76, p. 325), providing that the fines and forfeitures, not exceeding eight hundred dollars in the aggregate in any one month, imposed and collected by the police judge’s court in San Francisco for drunkenness, shall be paid by the clerk of such court to the Home for the Care of Inebriates, was not repealed by the act of March 5, 1889 (Stats. 1889, p. 62), reorganizing the police court, and providing that all fines and forfeitures imposed by such court should be paid into the treasury of the city by the clerk of each department once a week, and repealing all inconsistent acts and parts of acts, but containing no special reference to the act of March 17, 1876.
Id. — Repeals by Implication — Special Statute when not Repealed by General Law—Repeal of Inconsistent Acts. —Repeals by implication are not favored, and the repugnancy between two statutes should' be very clear to warrant a court in holding that the later in time repeals the other, when it does not, in terms, purport to do so. This rule has peculiar force in the case of laws of special and local application, which are never to he deemed repealed by general legislation, except upon the most unequivocal manifestation of intent to that effect, by language showing that the attention of the legislature was called to the special act, and that the general act was intended to embrace the special cases; and the mere fact that the general act contains a clause repealing acts inconsistent with it does not diminish the force of the rule.
Opinion — Sharpstein
Sharpstein, J. Appellant applied to the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco for a writ of mandate to compel respondent, as treasurer of said city and county, to pay to the petitioner certain moneys received by him in his official capacity. A general demurrer to the petition was interposed and sustained, and this appeal is from the judgment thereupon entered, denying the relief sought.
A writ of mandate may be issued by any court, except a justice’s or police court, to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1035.)
The contention of appellant is, that the law specially enjoins upon respondent, as a duty resulting from his office as treasurer, the payment to appellant the moneys demanded of him by it, by reason of certain acts of the legislature, the first of which was approved April 1,1870, and provides, among other things, that “the Home for the Care of the Inebriates of San Francisco shall always be kept open for the reception and care of inebriates, both male and female, of every nationality and sect, free of charge for their support, care, or medical attendance, while they necessarily remain therein”; and that “any police judge or magistrate of the city and county of San Francisco is hereby empowered to commit any person whom he shall convict of habitual intemperance to said Home.”
But the act mainly relied on in support of appellant’s contention is an act entitled “An act to provide for the care and maintenance of inebriates and certain insane persons in the city and county of San Francisco,” approved March 17, 1876, which provides that “the fines and forfeitures, not exceeding eight hundred dollars in the aggregate in any one month, imposed and collected by the police judge’s court in and for the city and county of San Francisco, from persons arrested for being drank, or under the influence of liquor, shall be, by [144]the clerk of said police judge’s court, immediately paid to the president, secretary, and treasurer, or a majority of them, at the Home for the Care of Inebriates of said city and county, for the support and maintenance of said Home for the Care of Inebriates, and the construction and improvements of a building for said Home for the Care of Inebriates”; and that “all persons in said city and county charged with being insane, and pending their examination, or found to be insane and en route for a state insane asylum, shall be placed in the said Home, .... without charge to said city and county.”
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)