People v. Craycroft

2 Cal. 243
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1852
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 2 Cal. 243 (People v. Craycroft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Craycroft, 2 Cal. 243 (Cal. 1852).

Opinion

Chief Justice Murray

delivered the opinion of the Court. The only question in this case necessary for our examination is, whether the State can maintain an action of debt, under the Act to license gaming, passed March' 14th, 1851, against persons keeping gaming houses, without having procured a license as provided by the act. The act referred to makes the keeping a gaming table, without a license, a misdemeanor; and the party, on conviction, punishable by a fine of not less than $100, nor more than $1000, or imprisonment in the county jail for not less than three, nor more than six months. There is no other penalty provided; nor any provision in the Statute authorizing a civil action to recover the amount of the license. Where a right is given, and a remedy provided, by statute, the remedy so provided must be pursued. It is true, if the right existed at common law, the plaintiff might pursue either remedy, the statutory one being regarded merely as cumulative. Here a new and independent obligation has been created; and the statute must be strictly followed. An action of debt will not lie against the. defendant, as upon a penal statute. The penalty is not certain; and the law has made no provision for the mode of prosecuting such an action. The only remedy is by indictment.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Rojo v. Kliger
801 P.2d 373 (California Supreme Court, 1990)
Gold v. Los Angeles Democratic League
49 Cal. App. 3d 365 (California Court of Appeal, 1975)
Orloff v. Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc.
180 P.2d 321 (California Supreme Court, 1947)
Moose v. . Barrett
27 S.E.2d 532 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)
People v. Schmidt
119 P.2d 766 (California Court of Appeal, 1941)
Wilkes v. City & County of San Francisco
112 P.2d 759 (California Court of Appeal, 1941)
County of Alameda v. Freitas
48 P.2d 165 (California Court of Appeal, 1935)
Street v. Reingke
37 P.2d 471 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Angelus Cloak Co.
15 P.2d 901 (California Court of Appeal, 1932)
Million v. Metropolitan Casualty Insurance
172 N.E. 569 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1930)
Ohio Valley Fire & Marine Insurance v. Wash
266 S.W. 921 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1924)
Silvia v. Scotten
122 A. 513 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1923)
Grimes v. Central Life Insurance
188 S.W. 901 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1916)
United States v. Jourden
4 Alaska 354 (D. Alaska, 1911)
Southern Railway Co. v. Moore
67 S.E. 85 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1910)
Homes v. Corbin
20 Mo. App. 497 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1886)
Wyant v. Tuthill
17 Neb. 495 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1885)
City of Dubuque v. Illinois Central Railroad
39 Iowa 56 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1874)
Ward v. Severance
7 Cal. 126 (California Supreme Court, 1857)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Cal. 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-craycroft-cal-1852.