community, when, in fact, the population of the new States, upon the establishment of Government, was formed by immigration from the original States. But no such presumption can apply to States in which a Government already existed at the time of their accession to the country, as Florida, Louisiana, and Texas." Unless these presumptions are destroyed by the statute establishing rules of its own, they exist. In the case of Van Maren vs. Johnson, 15 Cal., p. 312, the Court say of the common law: "That law constitutes the basis of our jurisprudence, and rights and liabilities must be determined in accordance with its principles, except so far as they are modified by the statute." A common law rule, the adoption of which the English Judges had frequent occasion to regret, will not be applied to a case arising for the first time in this State.-Johnson vs. Fall, 6 Cal., p. 359.

ozen

SPECIALLY.-1. In equity.-See Willis vs. Woz craft, 22 Cal., p. 614.

2. In keeping cattle within close.-See Waters vs. Moss, 12 Cal., p. 535.

3. The right of the owner to the possession of cord wood cut on land by one in possession without title or color thereof.-See Kimball vs. Johns, 31 Cal., p. 154. 4. In rights to water.-See Hill vs. Smith, 27 Cal., p. 476.

5. Construed.-The common law, as used in Act of Congress carrying out the treaty with China, is explained in Forbes vs. Scannell, 13 Cal., p. 242.

6. In trade marks.-See Falkinburg vs. Lucy, 34 Cal., p. 52.

7. In criminal pleadings.-See People vs. Dick, 37 Cal., p. 277.

8. In guardianship.-See Lord vs. Hough, 37 Cal., p. 659.

TITLE II.

EFFECT OF THE CODES.

SECTION 4478. Construction of the Codes with relation to the laws passed at the present session.

4479. Laws passed at present session prevail.

4480. Construction of Codes with relation to each other.

4481. Conflicts between Titles, which to prevail.

4482. Conflicts between Chapters, which to prevail.

SECTION 4483. Conflicts between Articles, which to prevail.

4484. Conflicting sections of the same Title, which to pre-
vail.

4478. With relation to the laws passed at the present session of the Legislature, THE POLITICAL CODE, CIVIL CODE, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, and PENAL CODE, must be construed as though each had been passed on the first day of the present session.

NOTE. But Sec. 4330 of the Political Code is construed as having been passed on the last day of the session.-See Stats. 1871-2, p. 653, cited in note to said section. See "Enactment of Statutes," Secs. 309-313, and notes, Political Code. "Promulgation of Statutes."-Id., Sec. 318. 'Operation of Statutes."—Id., Secs. 323-330. The following decisions may be consulted on the subject of the construction of statutes generally:

66

1. Officers' terms and election.-See People vs. Brenham, 3 Cal., p. 477.

2. Prospective and retrospective.-See Thorne et al. vs. San Francisco, 4 id., p. 127.

3. Consonant with Federal Constitution.-People vs. Coleman et al., 4 Cal., p. 46, on power of taxation; but in People vs. McCreary, 34 id., p. 432, overruled as to property exempt from taxation. Directory as to time.-Wood vs. Forbes, 5 Cal., p. 62.

4. Divesting rights to realty and rents thereof.Billings vs. Hall, 7 Cal,, p. 1.

5. Construing tax laws.-Scofield vs. White, 7 id., p. 400.

6. Applicable to equity and not law actions.-An-
drews vs. Mok. Hill Co., 7 id., p. 330.

7. Saving clause.-People vs. Gill, 7 id.,
p. 356.
8. Impairing rights of third parties.-See People
vs. Williams, 8 Cal., p. 97.

9. Summary proceedings.-Wilson vs. Broder, 10
Cal., p. 486.

10. Judgment against specific property.-Farmer vs. Rogers, 10 Cal., p. 335.

11. Advance election-vacancy.-People vs. Weller, 11 Cal., p. 77.

12. Submitting act to vote of the people.-See Blanding vs. Burr, 13 Cal., p. 343.

13. Decisions relate to the laws in existence at the date of the Act under consideration.-State vs. Mc

Glynn, 20 Cal., p. 233; Reddington vs. Waldron, 22 id., p. 185.

14. An Act referring to another, and making it the law for its purposes, perpetuates the latter Act for the purposes designated, notwithstanding its repeal, for all others.-Spring Valley W. Co. vs. San Francisco, 22 Cal., p. 434.

15. Legalizing assessments.-People vs. Todd, 23 Cal., p. 181.

16. Joint and several liability.-Irvine vs. McKeon, 23 Cal., p. 472.

17. When law goes into effect.- Reddington vs. Waldron, 22 Cal., p. 185.

18. Exception proves the rule.-Perry vs. Ames, 26 Cal., p. 372.

19. 'Representative," ," used in probate matters, construed.-Davis vs. Davis, 26 Cal., p. 23.

20. Retroactive.-Gates vs. Salmon, 28 Cal., p. 320. 21. A father legitimizing his child must do so as the statute provides.-Pina vs. Peck, 31 Cal., p. 359. 22. Intention to prevail. -Tynan vs. Walker, 35 Cal., p. 634.

23. Which of two cognate laws to prevail.-Estate of Wixom, 35 Cal., p. 320.

24. Every part to have effect if possible.-Gates vs. Salmon, 35 id., p. 516.

25. Every part to be considered.-People vs. Supervisors of San Francisco, 36 Cal., p. 595.

26. When mandatory. — People vs. Supervisors of San Francisco, 36 id., p. 595.

27. A statute repealed, as to a certain county, is not revived for that county by an amendatory Act.-People vs. Tyler, 36 Cal., p. 522; see, also, People vs. Gerke, 27 Cal., p. 228.

28. Strictly construed in certain case.-Eustace vs. Jahns, 38 Cal., p. 76.

29. In the absence of special provisions what general provisions apply.-People vs. Ross, 38 Cal., p. 76.

30. Lands, entry of, for purpose of purchase.-Durfee vs. Piaisted, 28 Cal., p. 80; Rush vs. Casey, 39 Cal., p. 339.

31. Unlawful detainer Act construed.-Norblett vs. Farwell, 28 Cal., p. 155.

32. Validating sales.-Ellis vs. Eastman, 38 Cal., p. 195.

33. Part repealed and part in force.-Attorney General vs. State Board of Judges, 38 Cal., p. 391.

34. Mismanagement by trustees of corporations.Martin vs. Zellerbach, 38 Cal., p. 300.

35. People may appeal in criminal cases only, where error occurs before jeopardy attaches.- People vs. Webb, 38 Cal., p. 467.

36. Hours of labor in municipal contracts.-Drew vs. Smith, 38 Cal., p. 325.

37. Probate Judges' powers at chambers.-Warden vs. Elkins, 38 Cal., p. 439.

38. Herding sheep.-Common law never was applicable.-Logan vs. Gidney, 38 Cal., p. 579.

39. Alimony.—Statutory provision for does not prohibit other.-Galland vs. Galland, 38 Cal., p. 265.

40. Cities and towns.-Lands for, under Act of Congress.-Jones vs. Petaluma, 38 Cal., p. 397; Alemany vs. id.; id., p. 553.

41. Repeal of statute, express and by implication.Christy vs. Board Sups. Sac. Co., 39 Cal., p. 3; Ex Parte Smith, 40 Cal., p. 419.

42. Motive of Legislature.-Cannot be inquired into. Harpending vs. Haight, 39 Cal., p. 189.

43. Retrospective. - Bensley vs. Ellis, 39 Cal., p. 308.

44. Rejection of claim to land restores it to public domain, and is subject to location.-Rush vs. Casey, 39 Cal., p. 339; McGary vs. Hastings, id., p. 360.

45. Effect of legislation on offices.-Trout vs. Gardiner, 39 Cal., p. 386. See "Office," Pol. Code.

46. Tenancy in common, created by Act.-Frisbie vs. Marques, 39 Cal., p. 451.

47. Divesting one of property.-The statute authorizing it to be strictly pursued.-Trumpler vs. Bemerley, 39 Cal., p. 490.

48. Bankruptcy.-Judgment, how affected by.-Merritt vs. Glidden, 39 Cal., p. 559.

49. Judgment in tax suit, how construed.-Eitel vs. Foote, 39 Cal., p. 439.

50. Service of summons, what sufficient in tax suit.People vs. Fox, 39 Cal., p. 621.

51. Statute not suspended, instance of.-People vs. Fox, last supra.

52. Possessory Act of this State construed.-Wolfskill vs. Malajourich, 39 Cal., p. 276.

53. Amendment.-Code Sec. 473 (268) construed.Bensley vs. Ellis, 39 Cal., p. 309.

54. Grand larceny, specific property may constitute.-People vs. Townsley, 39 Cal., p. 405.

55. "Children," word construed not to include grandchildren.-Estate of William Curry, 39 Cal., p. 592.

61-VOL. II-Co. C. Pro.

Laws

passed at present session prevail.

Construc

tion of

Code with

relation to

56. County Courts have common law jurisdiction within the meaning of the naturalization laws.-Estate of M. Conner, 29 Cal., p. 98.

57. "Payments" and "credits" in mechanics' liens. Preston vs. Sonora Lodge, 39 Cal., p. 116.

58. Funding Acts.-Soher vs. Supervisors of Calaveras County, 39 Cal., p. 134; Rose vs. Estudillo, 39 Cal., p. 270.

59. Practice Act construed to be entirely remedial. Hastings vs. Cunningham, 39 Cal., p. 137.

60. Legislature may authorize sale of property in certain cases.-Estate of Den, 39 Cal., p. 70.

61. State land law.-Stuart vs. Haight, 39 Cal., p. 87; Eckhart vs. Campbell, 39 id., p. 256.

62. Lands, possession adverse.-Figg vs. Mayo, 39 Cal., p. 262. School lands.-Chapman vs. Tuckman, 39 id., p. 674. Salt marsh and tide.-People vs. Washington, 40 Cal., p. 173.

63. United States revenue stamps.-Duffy vs. Hobson, 40 Cal., p. 240.

64. The words "shall go" mean shall vest, when.— Broad vs. Broad, 40 Cal., p. 493.

65. Survivorship, an essential element of tenure, may not be taken away by statute.- Greer vs. Blanchar, 40 Cal., p. 194.

66. Description, matter of.-Hughes vs. Reis, 40 Cal. p. 155.

4479. If the provisions of any law passed at the present session of the Legislature contravene or are inconsistent with the provisions of either of the four Codes, the provisions of such law must prevail.

4480.

NOTE. This section is but another form of stating the proposition contained in the preceding one. It is placed here not because it is necessary, but to convey to the layman the idea that the preceding section conveys to the professional reader. 1. Which statute controls. See Estate of Wixom, 35 Cal., p. 320; Gates vs. Salmon, id., p. 516. 2. Legislative intent.-See Tynan vs. Walker, id., p. 634. 3. When an Act is partially repealed as to a particular locality, a subsequent amendment of the Act does not revive it as to that locality.-People vs. Tyler, 36 Cal., p. 522. See notes to the succeeding sections.

With relation to each other, the provisions

each other. of the four Codes must be construed (except as in the