Treadwell v. Board of Supervisors

6 Citing cases

  1. Meyers v. Board of Supervisors

    110 Cal.App.2d 623 (Cal. Ct. App. 1952)   Cited 5 times

    [3] The effect of this amendment was to make it operate precisely as though the subject matter had been originally incorporated in Ordinance 1494. ( Treadwell v. Yolo County, 62 Cal. 563, 564.) On December 13, 1949, Ordinance 5447 was adopted, effective January 13, 1950.

  2. Penziner v. West American Finance Co.

    10 Cal.2d 160 (Cal. 1937)   Cited 136 times
    Approving the rule that a constitutional amendment "operates as an express limitation upon the extent to which it is intended that former acts shall cease to be operative, namely, only so far as they are actually inconsistent with the new act"

    " In Sponogle v. Curnow, 136 Cal. 580, 584 [ 69 P. 255], the rule is briefly stated as follows: "Although an act or part of an act may not be repealed expressly or by necessary implication, still a revision of the whole subject matter covering said act would supersede all such portions as were omitted from the revisory act." Other similar statements of the rule are to be found in State v. Conkling, 19 Cal. 501; Treadwell v. Yolo County, 62 Cal. 563; Harris v. Cooley, 171 Cal. 144 [ 152 P. 300]; Carter v. Stevens, 208 Cal. 649 [ 284 P. 217]. [10] The above statements of the rule likewise serve to fix the extent of its operation.

  3. County of San Diego v. Southern P. R. Co.

    108 Cal. 46 (Cal. 1895)   Cited 4 times

    B. Hotchkiss, for Respondent.          The plaintiff is not authorized to maintain the action, the act of 1880 having been repealed by the act of March 9, 1883, which is evidently intended to revise the whole system for the collection of taxes on railroad property of this kind, and substitute the new system for the old. (Pierpont v. Crouch , 10 Cal. 315; Treadwell v. Yolo County , 62 Cal. 563, 564; People v. Burt , 43 Cal. 560; People v. Sargent , 44 Cal. 430.)          JUDGES: Van Fleet, J. Harrison, J., and Garoutte, J., concurred.

  4. The State v. Catlin

    84 Tex. 48 (Tex. 1892)   Cited 15 times
    Stating article XVI, section 17, "never contemplated such legislation, but was intended to meet such emergencies as might occur under laws requiring elections or appointments to such offices to be made every two years"

    Neither the expiration of the two years for which Bovee was elected, nor the repeal of section 13 of the Act of 1889 by the Act of 1892, which took away the power of the city council to elect a successor to Bovee until 1893, would create a vacancy in the office. Special Laws 21st Leg., pp. 37, 38, secs. 13, 15; Special Laws 22d Leg., p. 94, sec. 15; Const. 1876, art. 16, secs. 17, 27; Jones v. City of Jefferson, 66 Tex. 579; Mech. Pub. Offices and Officers, sec. 397, and note; Id., sec. 128, and cases cited; Dill. Mun. Corp., 3 ed., secs. 219, 220, and notes; The State v. Howe, 25 Ohio St. 588; The People Ex Rel. v. Supervisors, 100 Ill. 495; Loring v. Benedict, 15 Minn. 201; The State Ex Rel. Jordon v. Bailey, 33 N.W. Rep., 778; Treadwell v. Yolo County, 62 Cal. 563; The State v. McGovney, 3 S.W. Rep., 867; The State Ex Rel. Carson v. Harrison, 16 N.E. Rep., 385. 3.

  5. Neuber v. Royal Realty Co.

    86 Cal.App.2d 596 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948)   Cited 50 times
    In Neuber v. Royal Realty Co., 86 Cal.App.2d 596 [ 195 P.2d 501], Scholey v. Steele, 59 Cal.App.2d 402 [ 138 P.2d 733], Singer v. Eastern Columbia, Inc., 72 Cal.App.2d 402 [ 164 P.2d 531], and Runyon v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.App. 383 [ 180 P. 837], the court was concerned with the question of the duty of a landlord with respect to the condition of the premises, liability for the lessee's activity or the landlord's duty to repair.

    The language "amended in its entirety so as to read as follows" can only mean that the legislative body had made a new and complete expression of its will upon the subject of building control. Therefore, this last expression must prevail, and whatever is excluded therefrom must be ignored ( Charnock v. Rose, 70 Cal. 189, 192 [11 P. 265]; Bond v. Farmers Merchants National Bank, 64 Cal.App.2d 842, 845, 846 [ 149 P.2d 722]; Treadwell v. Yolo County, 62 Cal. 563, 564; Dillon v. Bicknell, 116 Cal. 111, 114 [47 P. 937]; Mack v. Jastro, 126 Cal. 130, 132 [ 58 P. 372]). It would unduly prolong this opinion to her set forth in detail the various ordinances offered in evidence and rejected by the court. Generally speaking, they fall into two classes:

  6. Fenton v. Markwell Co.

    11 Cal.App.2d 755 (Cal. Ct. App. 1935)   Cited 14 times
    In Fenton v. Markwell Co. 11 Cal.App.2d 755, 52 P.2d 297, the plaintiff sought to recover under the usury law treble the sums paid for interest.

    [3] But there are other parts of the constitutional amendment to be considered, and there is another rule regarding repeals which is stated in Mack v. Jastro, 126 Cal. 130, 132, 133 [ 58 P. 372], as follows: "While it is true that repeals by implication are not favored, whenever it becomes apparent that a later statute is revisory of the entire matter of an earlier statute, and is designed as a substitute for it, the later statute will prevail, and the earlier statute will be held to have been superseded, even though there be found no inconsistencies or repugnancies between the two . . . It is not so much a repeal by implication as it is that, the legislature having made a new and complete expression of its will upon the subject, this last expression must prevail, and whatever is excluded therefrom must be ignored." To the same effect are State v. Conkling, 19 Cal. 501, 512; Treadwell v. Board of Supervisors of Yolo County, 62 Cal. 563, 564; Dillon v. Bicknell, 116 Cal. 111, 114 [47 P. 937]; Sponogle v. Curnow, 136 Cal. 580, 584 [ 69 P. 255]; Harris v. Cooley, 171 Cal. 144, 147 [ 152 P. 300]; Carter v. Stevens, 208 Cal. 649, 651 [ 284 P. 217]; Suydam v. Los Angeles Ry. Co., 27 Cal.App. 157, 161 [ 149 P. 55]; In re Weymann, 92 Cal.App. 646, 650 [ 268 P. 971]; Bank of Italy v. Symmes, 118 Cal.App. 716, 721 [ 5 P.2d 956]; Wood v. Roach, 125 Cal.App. 631, 638 [ 14 P.2d 170]; Jewett v. City Transfer etc. Co., 128 Cal.App. 556, 562 [ 18 P.2d 351]; People v. Carter, 131 Cal.App. 177, 181 [ 21 P.2d 129]. In Sponogle v. Curnow, supra, the court said: "Although an act or part of an act may not be repealed expressly or by necessary implication, still a revision of the whole subject matter covering said act would supersede all such portions as were omitted from the revisory act."