*1 оp Campbell. G23 1904.] Estate If it ambiguous. cause.” This instruction is somewhat proof legal means of malice follows presumption may infer jury A probable cause, want it is erroneous. cause, the former probable malice from want but on latter. The law legal necessary from the prеsumption Brannan, 39 Cal. subject Levy correctly v. stated jury in 485, as found follows: “Malice a fact be by the may proved be prosecution. an action for malicious prosecu acts declarations of the defendant crimi tion, or the matter was made the which charge may inferrеd against nal or it be plaintiff, jury probable probable cause. The from want want may it legal presumption malice, but cause does not raise a necessarily inferred therefrom—though be inferred —by may circumstances. jury, be inferred from other But, by proven, proven as a whatever mode also, Harkrader Moore, 153.) As the fact.” 44 Cal. (See, given above, it is case must reversed for the other reasons necessary instruction determine what jury it; probably how the another understood language might holding that malice trial be construed as legally presumed probable want cause should be avoided. points
There no other to be discussed. judgment order from are reversed. June 18, F.
[S. 3293. In Bank. No. CAMPBELL, E. In the Matter of the Estate of CORNELIA al., Appellants, et O. CAMPBELL Deceased. GEORGE SAN TREASURER OF CITY AND COUNTY OF Respondents. FRANCISCO, PEOPLE, and THE of 1899—Constitution- Inheritance Tax4-Amendment Collateral ality—Construction—Defect Body Act—Clerical Error. 1899 to being title of the amendment of no defect —There amendatory Tax Law the Collateral Inheritance a clerical consisting of 1893, a defect introductory 1 of the amendment clause of section error Cal., 1899, in omitting the first clause title, disregarded, must be and the valid, upon held principles of reasonable construction constitutionality favor of the validity of the amendment. Section—-Bepublication.—Where *2 Id.—Amendment amended is section 1 of lb»/, the act of republish act; the entire compliance but it is a sufficient with sec- tion of аrticle republish IV of the constitution to the section as amended. Id.—Uniformity Distinction.—The amendment of Act—Natural 1899 to the Collateral Ineritance-Tax and of uniform Law operation application in its to the natural distinction of brothers son, persons. sisters of deceased that of a fact wife the widow a son, daughter and the husband of a who do not exempted inherit provisions are from its on the basis rela- close by affinity, allowing tion by bequest thus them to devise, take cannot affect operation character and uniform of the as to amendment, inheritanсe. Strangers—Construction Id.—Bequests and Devises of Statute. imposed —The upon bequests tax devises to are by affinity blood who not related decedent, or of kin to if the word “collateral” is to be applying oequests construed as only, not to “inheritances” is to be deemeu “col- lateral,” word, within the of that in favor of the consti- tutionality of the act. Id.—Query to Word as “Collateral”—Limitation to “Inheritances.” questionable —It whether the word “collateral” should not application ''inheritances,” limited word and not “ex- “bequests” tended” to the words J., and “devises.” [Beatty, C. doubting.] Property—Taking Id.—Taxes Transferred Effect at Death— Separable provision imposing Provision.—The taxes upon property by deed, grant, sale, gift, transferred made to take in possession decedent, invalid, effect after the death of the expressed separaole, thе title of the and is not so important to the effect of the act as a whole as to render the en- section unconstitutional. tire Amendment.—The
Id.—Federal Constitution—Fourteenth provisions of the fourteenth amend- 1899 does not contravene of the United States. The rule of constitution mеnt principles of classi- equality is to the same as to amendment this court under the constitution as those declared fication state. Superior of distribution decree APPEAL from County col- San Francisco Court Judge. Coffey, J. V. taxes. inheritance lateral opinion The facts are stated in court. Ap- Jacobs, Goodwin,
Frohman & and Garoutte & for pellants. McEnerney, Dorn & Garber, Garret W. Dorn &
John Younger, B. Amici Curice. Savage, Jr., and Charles Byington, Attorney, Harris, District and I. As- Lewis F. Respondents. Attorney, District sistant case, THE COURT. After furtherconsideration of this Bank, we satisfied with decision hereinbefore made with the Mr. hereinbefore delivered Justice (see post, р. given Shaw 626), and for the reasons the decree of distribution from should *3 may however, be affirmed. It be well to that it is not say, in opinion stated that that there are two different incon City sistent in of Stimson, rules the cases the Pasadena v. of Darcy 91 249, Mayor, 642,—as and 104 Cal. intimated in petitions rehearing. case, one of the for In the Pasadena statutory provision while was that question held the there in unconstitutional, general was the rule was stated to be that law “is and constitutional it applies equally when all in a embraced class founded some natural or in trinsic or constitutional This quoted distinction.” clause was opinion in Shaw, expression the Justice and Mr. the in the latter opinion that “We are of the that this case within the first comes not within rule, qualification the last stated,” clearly means ease that the bar within comes the in rule stated Stimson, Pasadena v. is principle within exceptions the which are held both Darcy case Mayor Pasadena to be unconstitu said, response tional. be further to the contention in question violative of the fourteenth amend if, ment to the federal constitution, hold, that we it is not by forbidden constitution state, of this it is for like reа not violative the federal sons constitution. Federal courts provisions held state statutes have which un make distinctions and discriminations warranted contravene the equality declared in the principle fourteenth amendment; Cal.—40 CXLIII.
626 283, and S. Bank, U. Magoun v. Illinois etc. Gulf toas rule by counsel,—thе Ellis, 150,—cited 165 U. etc. v. S. substan- classification what and what not unwarranted this court. by tially the same as heretofore declared part The distribution decree of affirmed. referred following
The above decision and on Bank, adopted, rendered court 1903:— 27, November de
SHAW, J. appeаl This isan from that estate, providing of distribution in the cree above-entitled payment The of inheritance taxes. estate was distributed deceased, appeal brothers sisters question is the sole not the amendment of whether (Stats. Tax is constitutional. the Collateral Inheritance Lаw 101.) p. 1899, body point appellants is,
The first this, not conform to the title that while does designates it as an act to amend the act title act an 1893. 1897, fact amends ‘An entitled, title “An to amend is as follows: act an act entitled, on act to amend an act “An act to establish a tax its inheritances, bequests provide for ap- proceeds,” collection, disposition and to direct approved in- 23, 9, March 1897.” proved March 1893/ troductory first portion of the the act is as follows: an ‘An one of act to tax on entitled, “Section establish a *4 inheritances, bequests provide to collection, disposition ap- and to direct the its proceeds, of 23, approved hereby 9, 1897, March March proved is 1893/ ’’ to as follows. 1 of so as read Section the of 1893 amended act in 1897, amending amended the title the act in correctly the quoted 1899; title the act of 1897 but introductory that in the clause of 1 of be observed section will 1899, quoted, attempts quote above the the title 1897, but omits the first clause thereof,—to wit, act act to amend an act words, entitled,”—and begins “An with clause, as follows: “An act to tax,” second establish a etc. manifest that this is a mere clerical It is error. The defect is be If can title, body but the act. given a will make reasonable, construction and which Looking to it constitutional, prevail. that construction must reasonably amendatory entire be it cannot act, of 1897. construed otherwise than as an amendment disregarded act clerical error must therefore be held valid. objection
Another is, that the act is unconstitutional because it does not comply with that 24 of article section IV requiring the act revised section re- amended length enacted published at revised or аmended. only portion of the 1897 which is amended is section 1 thereof, length whole republished of that section is at amending required by act of 1899. This is all that the constitution. Where the title of an act indicates it is an amendment to the entire in fact the amendment comprised single made is all in a it is not thereof, republish the entire act. It is a com- pliance requirement with constitutional if the section which republished length amended as amended. urgent
The most appellants contention of that the act is unconstitutional it makes an unlawful because discrimina- tion parties between brothers and sisters and other mentioned therein, or, proposition to state the exactly, imposes because upon a tax the brothers and sisters of persons, deceased while exempting at the same time son, taxation the wife son, daughter. the widow of a and the husbаnd of a There many upon general have been ques- decisions this court tion The leading involved. case is the Stimson, Pasadena in which 249, case the principle was laid that a down constitu- applies tional equally when to all embraced a class natural, intrinsic, some founded or constitutional dis- qualification A further tinction. has been the case Darcy Mayor, 104 642, the effect that the classifica- arbitrary for the purpose tion must not be mere of classifica- legislation tion, really special order that local or may seem general, purposе but that it must be for the meeting naturally requiring legislation. conditions different different rule, that this case comes We within the first qualification not within the last stated. The statute in *5 upon collateral question, imposes an tax all the inheritance exempts from taxation deceased, relations and adopted chil- father, husband, issue, lawful mother, wife, any lawful dren, lineal deceased born descendant those wedlock. The to inheritances between distinction as distinction, line and relations is a natural the direct justify legislature a differ- Wil- (Estate to each. respect ent rule on this with or widow 281.) exempts the wife merding, It also strangers to the a daughter, the husband of a who are son, and succession, not inherit. blood, and our do who, under statute apply exemption can Consequently, the in these latter eases composed of sons-in- bequests The class devises. though not thе blood law and daughters-in-law, closely affinity, we cannot testator, very are related say dis- legislative discretion and that the with the interfere our sufficient, tinction is not natural. tax. legislature exempting persons from the
justify these im- because it It is claimed that the act is unconstitutional kin poses bequests upon a tax and devises strangers other is, upon all blood testator,- to the daughter, or husband of the the wife or widow the son than tax is thus persons, whom the that these classes of the title imposed, not embraced within terms affect the This defect in the act would of course nоt act. they being to the blood. appellants directly, here unconstitutionality that the But the further contention the act as is material to the this so effect legislature be presumed a is not to that the would whole that it they had this entire act understood that have enacted the and, thеrefore, rule part unconstitutional, of it was a of an act which is applies part that where which declares whole, a intermingled the act as with unconstitutional so give presump- important to its effect as to rise and so legislature would not have enacted the remaindеr tion that the part, unconstitutional the whole act must of it without the appel- This contention of the be declared unconstitutional. designation proposition lants is based bequests, wit, inheritances, and de- “Collateral the title—to so read that the word “collateral” shall vises”—must adjective “bequest” to the words qualifying applied *6 “devises,” and consequently argued act does it not include bequests blood, to devises only bequests kindred. devises to collateral “collateral,” word however, necessarily has the nar- not meaning for, any row here or contended rate we should give not it that if of such the effect construction is to make Here, the law again, unconstitutional. we must apply reasonably the rule susceptible where of a construction rather than will it un- one which make constitutional, although the latter be more reasonable оr obvious than the former. means on “Collateral” or at side, one of a side, subject, and this sense a be- quest any person to not in line relationship the direct properly although would be termed a bequest, person was akin Giving not to the testator. title of act this construction, doеs bequests it include and devises to strangers as as to well those the testator’s own kindred, is not to question- unconstitutional as either. however, It whether able the word “collateral” should be limited in application “inheritances,” the word and not extended “bequests” to the words “devises,” which eаse the objection is baseless. objection
Another is, that a provision there is upon property taxes deed, grant, sale, transferred or gift, possession enjoyment take effect in after decedent, the death of the dispositions that this class of property expressеd in the title of the act, again theory this claimed that the whole act must be say upon declared unconstitutional. this point that even the law is unconstitutional with property disposed of in this manner, apparent quite important so to the effect of act or section as a аs to make the whole entire section unconstitutional. the decree from is affirmed. J., Henshaw, J., Lorigan, Dyke, J.,
Van concurred. J., concurring. BEATTY, I concur. As to the C. word I no in the title have doubt “collateral” no qualify intended inheritances alone. There is such bequest. thing devise a collateral