TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Nevada School District v. Shoecraft

NEVADA SCHOOL DISTRICT OF NEVADA COUNTY v. B. N. SHOECRAFT

Nev. Sch. Dist. v. Shoecraft, 26 P. 211 (Cal. 1891)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 19, 1891
Docket
No. 14092
Citations
26 P. 21188 Cal. 3721891 Cal. LEXIS 698
Syllabus
Constitutional Law—Special Legislation—Inconsistency with General Law. — The special act of March 25, 1874, establishing and defining the powers and duties of the board of education of Nevada School District, is constitutional and valid, notwithstanding that at the time the act was passed section 1593 of the Political Code contained provisions ■ inconsistent therewith, there being nothing in the constitution at the time of its passage preventing special legislation, and the subject-matter being properly controlled by the latest expression of the legislative will. Id. —Existing Constitution not Retroactive. —The provision of the existing constitution that the legislature shall not pass local or special laws in certain cases applies only to future and not to past legislation.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Nevada County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

The Court.

This action is brought in the name of the Nevada School District, and its purpose is to have the court decree that the defendants deliver all the lots, buildings, and school-houses in the city of Nevada used for the purpose of conducting the public schools into the possession of George E. Shaw, J. I. Caldwell, and N, Douglass, who claim to have been *373 recently elected school trustees of said district. The defendants, all but two, are the persons who are the regularly elected and acting school directors of said district, under an act of the legislature approved March 25,1874, entitled “An act to establish and define the powers and duties of the board of education of Nevada School District”; and the other two are janitor and watchman under said other defendants. The point relied on by appellant is, that said act of March 25,1874, under which the board of education of Nevada City has been acting for more than sixteen years, is unconstitutional and totally void. We do not think that the position taken by appellant is tenable.

There was nothing in the old constitution which prevented special legislation (Meade v. Watson, 67 Cal. 591 ); and therefore the fact that when the said act was passed section 1593 of the Political Code provided that “ the number of school trustees for any school district, except where city boards are otherwise authorized by law, shall be three,” did not prevent the legislature from subsequently creating the Nevada district. The latest expression of the legislative will on the special subject in hand controls.

The provision of the present constitution that the legislature shall not pass local or special laws in certain cases applies to future and not to past legislation. (Ex parte Burke, 59 Cal. 6 .)

Neither do we think that the act is void because inconsistent with any of the provisions of the present constitution.

The judgment is affirmed.

Sharpstein, J., dissented.

How later courts describe this case

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

1892: 11907: 11911: 11920: 11942: 118922026peak 1892 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bd. of Educ. of S.F. v. Hyatt93 P. 117 (Cal. 1907)
  2. Vallejo Ferry Co. v. Lang & McPherson120 P. 421 (Cal. 1911)
  3. San Francisco Unified School District v. City & County of San Francisco128 P.2d 696 (Cal. Ct. App. 1942)
  4. Moore v. Cunningham87 So. 112 (Miss. 1920)
  5. Smith v. McDermott29 P. 34 (Cal. 1892)

Most recent

  1. San Francisco Unified School District v. City & County of San Francisco128 P.2d 696 (Cal. Ct. App. 1942)
  2. Moore v. Cunningham87 So. 112 (Miss. 1920)
  3. Vallejo Ferry Co. v. Lang & McPherson120 P. 421 (Cal. 1911)
  4. Bd. of Educ. of S.F. v. Hyatt93 P. 117 (Cal. 1907)
  5. Smith v. McDermott29 P. 34 (Cal. 1892)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Ex parte Burke, 59 Cal. 6 (1881) 22
Meade v. Watson, 8 P. 311 (Cal. 1885) 5

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