People v. Whipple, No. 2

47 Cal. 592
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1874·No. No. 3,942·Published·Cited by 15 cases

Opinion

By the Court:

1. It is competent for the Legislature, in creating an [594]*594office, to define the duties of the incumbent, by making reference to another and existing statute, and to provide that those duties shall be the same as required by the Act so referred to. The twenty-fifth section of the third article of the Constitution does not prohibit that mode of legislation.

2. Nor does the subsequent repeal of the Act so referred to, operate to defeat or curtail the scope of the Act" in which such reference is contained, for the legal effect of such reference, in the first instance, is the same as though the Act so referred to had been inserted therein in extenso.

3. ■ The third point of the appellant was abandoned on the argument.

Judgment affirmed.

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

People v. Whipple, No. 2, 47 Cal. 592 (Cal. 1874).

47 Cal. 592 (People v. Whipple, No. 2) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

NELSON MACHINERY COMPANY v. Yavapai County
491 P.2d 1132 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1971)
Ex Parte McMahan
1951 OK CR 146 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1951)
Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc.
195 P.2d 1 (California Supreme Court, 1948)
Devery v. Webb
70 P.2d 377 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1937)
Bolton v. Terra Bella Irrigation District
289 P. 678 (California Court of Appeal, 1930)
Greene v. Town of Lakeport
239 P. 702 (California Court of Appeal, 1925)
People v. Frankovich
221 P. 671 (California Court of Appeal, 1923)
In Re Burke
212 P. 193 (California Supreme Court, 1923)
Vallejo & Northern Railroad v. Reed Orchard Co.
170 P. 426 (California Supreme Court, 1918)
Don v. Pfister
155 P. 60 (California Supreme Court, 1916)
Ex Parte Lemon
77 P. 455 (California Supreme Court, 1904)
Ventura County v. Clay
44 P. 488 (California Supreme Court, 1896)