People v. Citizens National Trust & Savings Bank (1933)

The second paragraph of section 34311 of the Government Code (providing in essence that, as previously noted, if upon the final hearing the board finds and determines that written protests have been filed representing 51 per cent of the total *142 assessed value of land within the boundaries of the proposed incorporation, the board's jurisdiction shall cease) was not added until 1957 by an amendment of said section 34311. [3a] It must, therefore, be presumed that the Legisla…

“Where a statute, with reference to one subject contains a given provision, the omission of such provision from a similar statute concerning a related subject [in this case, the same subject] is significant to show that a different intention existed.” (23 Cal.Jur. 778, §154; Estate of Garthwaite (1933), 131 Cal.App. 321, 326 [ 21 P.2d 465 ].) It is ordinarily to be presumed that the Legislature by deleting an express provision of a statute intended a substantial change in th…

Taking the other alternative, we find that under a well-established rule of law the court may not add or supply words to a statute, unless necessary to give effect to the clear intent of the legislature in its enactment, which rule is aptly stated by Mr. Justice Houser in Estate of Garthwaite, 131 Cal. App. 321, 324 [ 21 Pac. (2d) 465 ], thus: ‘'Equally as strong and imperative is the rule of law which in effect denies to courts authority in anywise to add, or to supply, wor…

Where a statute, with reference to one subject contains a given provision, the omission of such provision from a similar statute concerning a related subject is significant to show that a different intention existed. (45 Cal.Jur.2d § 179, page 679; Estate of Garthwaite, 131 Cal.App. 321, 326 [ 21 P.2d 465 ].) It must also be presumed that the Legislature did not perform an idle act in amending said sections 2930 and 5221 of the Streets and Highways Code and in adding section…

Difference in language of the two sections points to difference in legislative intent. “‘ Where a statute, with reference to one subject contains a given provision, the omission of such provision *462 from a similar statute concerning a related subject [in this case, the same subject] is significant to show that a different intention existed.’ (23 Cal.Jur. 778, §154; Estate of Garthwaite (1933), 131 Cal.App. 321, 326 [ 21 P.2d 465 ].) It is ordinarily to be presumed that the…

Estate of Garthwaite, 131 Cal.App. 321, 326 [ 21 P.2d 465 ]; Southern Pacific Co. v. McColgan, 68 Cal.App.2d 48, 54-5 [ 156 P.2d 81 ] ; People v. Valentine, 28 Cal.2d 121, 142 [ 169 P.2d 1 ].) Mr. Whelan contends that a writ of certiorari will not lie to review the order adjudging petitioner in contempt for the reason that he had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law by an appeal from the interlocutory judgment insofar as the decree required payment of the attorney’s fe…

(Hoffman v. McNamara, 102 Cal. App. 280 [ 282 Pac. 990 ].) The rule of statutory construction requiring that effect must be given to each sentence, phrase and word (Estate of Garthwaite, 131 Cal. App. 321, 324 [ 21 Pac. (2d) 465 ]) applies with emphasis to an amendment which has evidently been enacted to abolish an evil or to improve a practice.

(Estate of Garthwaite, 131 Cal. App. 321, 324 [ 21 Pac. (2d) 465 ].) It is also argued that the rule, “The mode is the measure of the power”, likewise compels us to adopt petitioners’ view.

As said in Estate of Garthwaite, 131 Cal. App. 321, 325 [ 21 Pac. (2d) 465 ] : “It is also a presumption that in exercising its prerogative in enacting laws the legislature does so in view of, and with reference to, existing laws and judicial decisions; and that a particular statute was enacted by it ‘in the light’ of such judicial decisions as had a direct bearing upon such statute. (23 Cal. Jur. 782, and authorities there cited.) ” Furthermore, even though the legislature …

The property cannot go to the designated heirs, and the charitable bequest is therefore valid if (a) the testator does not leave surviving him a nephew, niece or nearer heir (Estate of Mautner, 38 Cal. App. (2d) 521 [ 101 P. (2d) 520 ]; see Estate of Garthwaite, 131 Cal. App. 321 [ 21 P. (2d) 465 ] for the opposite rule before the 1937 amendment to section 41), or (b) if he has so framed his will that his nephews, nieces, or nearer heirs would not take what would otherwise b…

The property cannot go to the designated heirs, and the charitable bequest is therefore valid if (a) the testator does not leave surviving him a nephew, niece or nearer heir (Estate of Mautner, 38 Cal.App.2d 521 [ 101 P.2d 520 ]; see Estate of Garthwaite, 131 Cal.App. 321 [ 21 P.2d 465 ] for the opposite rule before the 1937 amendment to section 41), or (b) if he has so framed his will that his nephews, nieces, or nearer heirs would not take what would otherwise be a defeate…