TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Hunt

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. EDWIN HUNT

People v. Hunt, 41 Cal. 435 (1871)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1871
Docket
No. 2,816
Judges
Rhodes
Citations
41 Cal. 435
Syllabus
Repeal oe Repealing Act.—The repeal of an Act repealing a former Act does not revive the former Act, or give it any force or effect. To revive such former Act it must be reenacted. Oeeice Revived by Repealing Act.—If a general Act creates an office in all the counties of the State, to be filled by election once in two years, and a special Act, passed afterwards, takes one county away from the provisions of the Act, and this special Act is afterwards repealed by an Act which restores the office as to that county, the provisions of the general Act are revived as to the office. Oase Abbirmed.—Trout v. Gardiner, 39 Cal. 386.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The County of Alameda contains six townships. At the general election held in September, 1867, an Assessor was elected for each township. At the general election held in September, 1869, Edwin Hunt was elected County Assessor; but no Township Assessors were elected. Hunt received his certificate, qualified, and, on the first Monday in March, 1870, entered upon the discharge of his duties. No Township Assessors were elected to succeed those of 1867. The Act of 1864, referred to in the opinion, provided “that Township Assessors should be elected in 1865, and every two years thereafter, for Alameda County, to hold their offices two years from the first Monday in March succeeding such election, and until their successors should be elected and qualified.” The Attorney General filed his complaint, by way of information of quo warranto, against the respondent, Edwin Hunt, setting up the above matters of fact, and the facts stated in the opinion, and asked judgment of ouster against him. The defendant demurred to the complaint, and had final judgment on the demurrer. The plaintiff appealed. The other facts are stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Rhodes

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

By the Court, Rhodes, C. J.:

The question for determination is whether the defendant is the County Assessor of Alameda County. The Revenue Act of 1861 provided that County Assessois should be elected in 1861, and every two years thereafter, in each county. (Stats. 1861, p. 422.) In 1864 a special Act was passed for Alameda County, by which it was provided that Township Assessors should be elected in that county. (Stats. 1863-4, p. 243.) The Act of March 28th, 1868 (Stats. 1867-8, p. 448), contained a provision, in section three, that assessments should be made in all the counties by County Assessors, and that in counties wherein there were Township or District Assessors, County Assessors should be elected at the general electión in 1869.' The defendant was elected in 1869 as the County Assessor of Alameda County.

The Act of 1868 was expressly repealed by the Act of March 5th, 1870 (Stats.' 1869-70, p. 198, Sec. 98)', which took effect upon its "approval. It is contended by the plaintiffs that the effect of the repeal was to leave in force the Act of 1864, providing for the election of Township Assessors in Alameda County.

It was held in Trout v. Gardiner, 39 Cal. 386 , that the Act of March 28th, 1868, took effect for certain purposes before the first Monday—the seventh day—of March, 1870; and, *439 among other things, that it authorized and required the officers to be elected as therein provided, which might be necessary in order that the Act might have full force and effect. It was provided by the Act that County Assessors should be elected at the general election in 1869, and for that purpose the Act took effect sixty days after its passage. That provision repealed the Act of 1864, providing for the election of Township Assessors for Alameda County. The repeal of the Act of 1868, two days before it took effect, for all purposes, by the Act of March 5th, 1870, did not revive the special Act of 1864. The repeal of an Act repealing a former Act does not revive the former Act, or give it any force and effect. This result can be accomplished only by the reenactment of the former Act. The repeal of the'Act of 1864, by section three of the Act of 1868, worked the same result as would an Act directly repealing the Act of 1864; that is to say, the special Act having been repealed, a County Assessor was required to be elected for Alameda County in 1869, as provided by the general Revenue Act of 1861. The defendant was elected as such Assessor, and he was authorized and required to perform all the duties of County Assessor, as provided by the revenue laws.

Judgment affirmed, and remittitur ordered to issue forthwith.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1875–1876: 11909–1910: 11927–1928: 11945–1946: 11947–1948: 12003–2004: 118752026peak 1875 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Meek v. McClure49 Cal. 623 (1875)
  2. Union Bank of California v. Superior Court9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 137 (2004)
  3. County of Ventura v. Barry262 P. 1081 (Cal. 1927)
  4. People v. Ely163 P.2d 453 (Cal. Ct. App. 1945)
  5. County of Lake v. Cuneo76 N.E.2d 826 (Ill. App. Ct. 1947)
  6. Tilden v. Esmeralda County32 Nev. 319 (1910)

Most recent

  1. Union Bank of California v. Superior Court9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 137 (2004)
  2. County of Lake v. Cuneo76 N.E.2d 826 (Ill. App. Ct. 1947)
  3. People v. Ely163 P.2d 453 (Cal. Ct. App. 1945)
  4. County of Ventura v. Barry262 P. 1081 (Cal. 1927)
  5. Tilden v. Esmeralda County32 Nev. 319 (1910)
  6. Meek v. McClure49 Cal. 623 (1875)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Trout v. Gardiner, 39 Cal. 386 (1870) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list