Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-05-09
DEBRIS DECISIONS.
Action of the supreme Court Upon the
Cases Brought Before it.
Is. F. Call, May sth.l

Is. F. Call, May Still
The following opinion was delivered by the
Supreme Court yesterday. in the case Of
Cauron VS.. Ken6eld, Controller, and We'll,
Treasurer of the State Of California This is
petition fer writ of prohibition command
ing The Controller to refrain and desist from
drawing warrants upon the treasury in
payment of any claims airing under
the Act Of April %, 1880, entitled ''aa
Act to promote drainage and the Treas
urer from paying out any money
upon such warrants. The writ of prohi-
bitten is tie counterpart of the wit of
mandate. 1t arrests the proceedings of any
tribunal. corpGratlon board or person, when
such proceedings are without or in excess Of
the Jurisdiction Of such tribunal, corporation.
e,c. The Legislature has no power u enact
the statute which purports to amend Section
1lQ2 OF the Code If Civil Procedure, and to
provide that the writ shall arrest tie pro-
ceedings lin excess of juris6ictiop) Of airy tri-
bunal, etc, whether exercising functions Judi
cial or ministerial, in SO far as it attempts to
extend the effce of the wit. Witt denied
and proceedings dismissed. Justice Thorn.
ton, Ia concurring in the opinion. says: In
concurring in this opinion, l limit it to the
extension of q e writ mentioned therein by
the Act of the Legislature to the original ju-
risdiction of this Court l do not think such
jurisdiction can be added to By tho Legisla-
ture. 1t may be that the Legislature has the
power 10 extend the scope of writ of the
kid spoken of il the opinion, whether it be
called certiorari or not, to the Superior
Courts, hut on this point no definite judy
rlent is here intended to be expressed"
The following opinion vas filed yesterday
afternoon in thu case of Camron against
John We'll, Treasurer, etc in the Supreme
Court, being concurred in by the entire
Bench. The petitioner alleges that there is
in the State Treasury sum of money "col-
lsctsd, received and paid into the State Treas.
ury TO the credit of certain funds designated
lin the Act of April %, 1880, entitled can
Act to promote drainage") as the State
Drainage Construction Fund and Construction
Fund of Drainage Distric. No. L" Because, as
claimed by petitioner. the Act Of the Legis.
lature is Invalid, we are asked, by writ Of
mandate, to compel the State Treasurer
forthwith to credit the snm aforesaid to the
general fuld. Section 454 of the Political
Code provides (" Tie General Fund consists
of moneys received ia.o the treasury and not
specially appropriated" The money which
The petitioner asks to have transferred to the
General Fund was received by the Treasurer
in his oificia capacity, and he is responsible
FORTS safe keeping. lie may refuse to pay any
portion of it out upca demand based upon
statute coed in form, but invalid because
Unconstitutional But it by no means fol.
love-, that because the Treasurer is lot au-
thorized TO pay out moneys collected under
an invalid statute, for the purposes men-
toned in it, he cannot be required to pay it
out ior other purposes. Yet such is the real
object Of the present application. If the
'Acs to promote drainage" constituted
part OF the legislation OF this State
prior to the adoption Of the Political
Code, or had been enacted st the same
time, it would seem very clear that Sec.
ton 454 of the Code did not require that
the moneys collected under the Drainage Act
should be placed tO the credit OF the General
Fund. In the case supposed, Section 454
would be rad as if it had declared " the
General Fund consists OF moneys received
into the treasury and not specially appropri-
ated by the Act to promote drainage, etc"
In arriving at the intention Of the Legisla-
ture sought to be expressed in the section,
the circumstance that the Drainage Act
was unconstitutional would not, III such
case, be material Tie purpose Of
the Legislature to exclude from
the General Fund the moneys
collected uuder the Drainage Act, would be
equally apparent whether the latter Act was
or Was not a constitutional or valid statute
The Drainage Act, so called, was not
passed until after the Political Code; but
Section asa evidently conteul plates the excu-
sion from ths general fund Of moneys speci-
ally appropriated by subs quent Acts Of the
Legislature. The Legislature, by formal
Act, did specially appropriate the moneys
collected under the Act to Promote Drain
age" The Drainage Act may he invalid, but
this does not change the intention expressed
in Section 454 Of the Political Code, which is
to include in the general furd only the
mOnpyS which NAV not he s,laci aily anDrnnri-
ated by the declaration of the Legislature
II the Drainage Act is void, the moseys col
lected under it must remain in the Treasury
until appropriated by an Act of the Lsgisla-
ture, requiring that they be returned to
the taxpayers or otherwise appropriating
them. Il may be admitted that the Legisla-
ture has the power to appropriate to the
payment of the general expenditures of
the Government moneys collected and at
tempted to be appropriated under statute
absolutely void, and yet every principle of
sound construction requires of us TO hold that
such was not the intention Of the legislative
body, unless the Language employed clearly |
demands that such intention be imputed. In |
our opinion, the language Ct Section 45i |
does not make necessary a coustruc- |
element or injustice, even il the moneys |
can, in strict law, be assumed to have |
been paid by the taxpayers voluntarily. The |
section ought not to be held to create resid- |
nary fund into which shall lapse all moneys |
which the Legislature may have attempted, |
Intellectually, to appropriate to some sperial |
II simply refers to the general fund |
such moneys received into the State treasury /
as have rot BY formal legislative enactment /
valid or iuvalid) been declared to be appre-
priated specially. Writ denied and proceed