People ex rel. Hall v. Supervisors of San Francisco

20 Cal. 591, 1862 Cal. LEXIS 78
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1862·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Norton, J. delivered the opinion of the Court—Field, C. J. and Cope, J. concurring.

The question whether the first section of the law of 1861, authorizing the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco County to license intelligence offices is unconstitutional, cannot be raised by the appellant in this proceeding. That section clearly does not require the Board of Supervisors to order a license to issue to any other person than such as they deem properly qualified to keep an intelligence office. If the discretion given by this section to withhold a license from any particular person who may apply for one is an unconstitutional limitation upon the right of the citizen to follow a lawful avocation, it may render the section void, and leave it open for any person to pursue the business without a license; but it does not work an affirmative right to a license by any person, irrespective of the decision of the Board of Supervisors as to his qualifications. The relator cannot have a mandamus to compel the granting of a license under the law for a reason which, if valid, shows the law to be void.

The Revenue Law of 1861 does not apply to the County of San Francisco, so far as respects this subject; and hence the general repealing clauses of that law do not have the effect to repeal this law.

The order and judgment denying the application for a mandamus is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

People ex rel. Hall v. Supervisors of San Francisco, 20 Cal. 591, 1862 Cal. LEXIS 78 (Cal. 1862).

20 Cal. 591 (People ex rel. Hall v. Supervisors of San Francisco) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hollman v. Warren
196 P.2d 562 (California Supreme Court, 1948)
Martin v. Board of Supervisors
26 P.2d 843 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)
Comley, State's Attorney, Ex Rel. Rowell v. Boyle
162 A. 26 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1932)
State Ex Rel. Powell v. State Bank
4 P.2d 717 (Montana Supreme Court, 1931)
L. J. Mueller Furnace Co. v. Crockett
227 P. 270 (Utah Supreme Court, 1924)
Person v. . Doughton
120 S.E. 481 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)
State ex rel. Hunter v. Winterrowd
91 N.E. 956 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1910)
Wright v. Kelley
43 P. 565 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1895)