section 1 fourteenth amendment in California

1924We quote: “It also appears to us that in order to hold the act in question unconstitutional, it will be necessary for this court to hold that Section 1 of Article XIX of our State constitution violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” Petitioner has cited a number of authorities to the effect that certain statutes and ordinances which discriminated against aliens were repugnant to the fourteenth amendment: Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356 [ 30 L.

1924We quote: “It also appears to us that in order to hold the act in question unconstitutional, it will be necessary for this court to hold that Section 1 of Article XIX of our State constitution violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” Petitioner has cited a number of authorities to the effect that certain statutes and ordinances which discriminated against aliens were repugnant to the fourteenth amendment: Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356 [ 30 L.

1957Dist., 74 Cal. App. 681, 702 [ 242 P. 100 ]; Colburn v. Wilson, 23 Idaho 337 .) [10] Likewise the state is not the owner of the domestic water of the state in the sense that it has absolute power and dominion over it to the exclusion of the rights of those who have the beneficial interest therein.

1957Dist., 74 Cal.App. 681, 702 [ 242 P. 100 ]; Colburn v. Wilson, 23 Idaho 337 .) Likewise the state is not the owner of the domestic water of the state in the sense that it has absolute power and dominion over it to the exclusion of the rights of those who have the beneficial interest therein.

1939Upon this being called to the court’s attention it granted a rehearing and otherwise disposed of the case. [Bank of California v. McCoy, 23 Cal. App. (2d) 192 ( 72 Pac. (2d) 923 ).] It is claimed in respondent’s behalf that the requirement that a chattel mortgage be rerecorded within some given time after its original recordation or, in default thereof, be void against creditors of a mortgagor, cannot be applied to mort *414 gages in existence at the time the requirement was enacted, consistently with section 10 of article 1 of the federal Constitution forbidding any state to violate the oblig

1905(San Joaquin Lumber Co. v. Welton, 115 Cal. 1 , [ 46 Pac. 735, 1057 ]; Sweeney v. Meyer, 124 Cal. 517 , [ 57 Pac. 479 ].) Nor are the provisions of section 1195 in conflict with section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution, or with any other provision of the federal or state constitution. *309 The second point is in effect disposed of by the decision in Reid v. Clay, 134 Cal. 215, 216 , [ 66 Pac. 262 .] That was a case of the foreclosure of a street assessment lien, under the act governing that subject, which provided that “in all cases of recovery under the provisions of

1905In this respect cases coming under the provisions of section 1195 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and similar statutes, are to be distinguished from the case of foreclosure of mortgages, where there is no statutory provision providing for attorney’s fees, “in the absence of a provision in the mortgage.” (Monroe v. Fohl, 72 Cal. 570 , [ 14 Pac. 514 ]; Hotaling v. Montieth, 128 Cal. 556 , [ 61 Pac. 95 ].) The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

1905In this respect cases coming under the provisions of section 1195 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and similar statutes, are to be distinguished from the case of foreclosure of mortgages, where there is no statutory provision providing for attorney’s fees, “in the absence of a provision in the mortgage.” (Monroe v. Fohl, 72 Cal. 570 , [ 14 Pac. 514 ]; Hotaling v. Montieth, 128 Cal. 556 , [ 61 Pac. 95 ].) The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

1905In this respect cases coming under the provisions of section 1195 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and similar statutes, are to be distinguished from the case of foreclosure of mortgages, where there is no statutory provision providing for attorney’s fees, “in the absence of a provision in the mortgage.” (Monroe v. Fohl, 72 Cal. 570 , [ 14 Pac. 514 ]; Hotaling v. Montieth, 128 Cal. 556 , [ 61 Pac. 95 ].) The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

1905(San Joaquin Lumber Co. v. Welton, 115 Cal. 1 , [ 46 Pac. 735, 1057 ]; Sweeney v. Meyer, 124 Cal. 517 , [ 57 Pac. 479 ].) Nor are the provisions of section 1195 in conflict with section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution, or with any other provision of the federal or state constitution. *309 The second point is in effect disposed of by the decision in Reid v. Clay, 134 Cal. 215, 216 , [ 66 Pac. 262 .] That was a case of the foreclosure of a street assessment lien, under the act governing that subject, which provided that “in all cases of recovery under the provisions of

1905(San Joaquin Lumber Co. v. Welton, 115 Cal. 1 , [ 46 Pac. 735, 1057 ]; Sweeney v. Meyer, 124 Cal. 517 , [ 57 Pac. 479 ].) Nor are the provisions of section 1195 in conflict with section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution, or with any other provision of the federal or state constitution. *309 The second point is in effect disposed of by the decision in Reid v. Clay, 134 Cal. 215, 216 , [ 66 Pac. 262 .] That was a case of the foreclosure of a street assessment lien, under the act governing that subject, which provided that “in all cases of recovery under the provisions of

1905(San Joaquin Lumber Co. v. Welton, 115 Cal. 1 , [ 46 Pac. 735, 1057 ]; Sweeney v. Meyer, 124 Cal. 517 , [ 57 Pac. 479 ].) Nor are the provisions of section 1195 in conflict with section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution, or with any other provision of the federal or state constitution. *309 The second point is in effect disposed of by the decision in Reid v. Clay, 134 Cal. 215, 216 , [ 66 Pac. 262 .] That was a case of the foreclosure of a street assessment lien, under the act governing that subject, which provided that “in all cases of recovery under the provisions of