Skip to main content
· 6/18/1892

Home for Care of Inebriates v. Reis

Citations

  • 95 Cal. 142
  • 30 P. 205
  • 1892 Cal. LEXIS 796

Syllabus

<p>Home for the Care of Inebriates — Recovery of Fines Paid to County Treasurer — Mandamus. —There is no law which specially enjoins it as a duty of the treasurer of the city and county of San Francisco, resulting from an office, trust, or station, to pay to the Home for the Care of the Inebriates of San Francisco the amount of any fines collected by the police courts and turned over to him, and mandamus will not lie to compel him to pay over to the Home the amount of any fines so collected, although the clerk of the police judge’s court may have turned over to the treasurer the moneys which he is enjoined by the act of March 17, 1876, to pay directly to the officers of the Home.</p> <p>Id. — Payment of Fines for Drunkenness—Repeal of Statute. — The act of March 17, 1876 (Stats. 1875-76, p. 325), providing that the fines and forfeitures, not exceeding eight hundred dollars in the aggregate in any one month, imposed and collected by the police judge’s court in San Francisco for drunkenness, shall be paid by the clerk of such court to the Home for the Care of Inebriates, was not repealed by the act of March 5, 1889 (Stats. 1889, p. 62), reorganizing the police court, and providing that all fines and forfeitures imposed by such court should be paid into the treasury of the city by the clerk of each department once a week, and repealing all inconsistent acts and parts of acts, but containing no special reference to the act of March 17, 1876.</p> <p>Id. — Repeals by Implication — Special Statute when not Repealed by General Law—Repeal of Inconsistent Acts. —Repeals by implication are not favored, and the repugnancy between two statutes should' be very clear to warrant a court in holding that the later in time repeals the other, when it does not, in terms, purport to do so. This rule has peculiar force in the case of laws of special and local application, which are never to he deemed repealed by general legislation, except upon the most unequivocal manifestation of intent

Judges: Harrison, Haven, McFarland, Sharpstein

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.