TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lewis v. County Clerk of Santa Clara

LEWIS v. THE COUNTY CLERK OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY

Lewis v. Cnty. Clerk of Santa Clara, 55 Cal. 604 (1880)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1880
Docket
No. 6,756
Judges
Myrick
Citations
55 Cal. 6041880 Cal. LEXIS 330
Syllabus
Insolvency Act of 1876—Bankrupt Act — Constitutional Law.—Tlie existence of the United States Bankrupt Law did not render the Insolvency Act of March 31st, 1876, unconstitutional, but merely postponed its operation ; and upon the repeal of the Federal law, the State act became operative in regard to debts arising after its passage, whether arising before or after the repeal of the Federal law.
Summary
Peohibition to the County Court of Santa Clara County.

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

Opinion of the Court — Myrick

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

Myrick, J.:

An alternative writ of prohibition was directed to the then County Court of Santa Clara County, to prevent it from proceeding further in an insolvency matter under the Act of March 31st, 1876. The claims of two of the petitioning 'creditors accrued after the passage of the State Bankruptcy Law, and before the repeal of the Federal Bankruptcy Law; and the petitioner in this case claims that the act of the Legislature of this State, having been passed while the Federal law was in existence, was not only inoperative during the existence of the Federal law, but is also inoperative after the repeal of the Federal law as to any claims arising before such repeal.

A State bankruptcy law is not repealed by the passage of a Federal bankruptcy law; its operation is suspended. This subject was considered in Boedfeld v. Reed, 55 Cal. 299 ; and the principles stated in that opinion, as well as the reasons of the case, seem to us to lead inevitably to the conclusion that the existence of a Federal law does not prevent the passage of a State law; it merely postpones its operation; and that upon the repeal of the Federal law, the State law, being in existence, becomes operative, as well in regard to debts arising after the passage of the State law, before the repeal of the Federal law, as in regard to *606 thosc arising after the repeal. (Damon’s Appeal, Reporter, August 4th, 1880, vol. 5, p. 180.)

Writ discharged.

Sharpstein, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1881–1882: 11937–1938: 118812026peak 1881 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Pierce v. Riley70 P.2d 206 (Cal. Ct. App. 1937)
  2. Seattle Coal & Transportation Co. v. Thomas57 Cal. 197 (1881)

Most recent

  1. Pierce v. Riley70 P.2d 206 (Cal. Ct. App. 1937)
  2. Seattle Coal & Transportation Co. v. Thomas57 Cal. 197 (1881)

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
Boedefeld v. Reed, 55 Cal. 299 (1880) 4

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