*1 cases, preju- probable In accrued installments. such enforcement, apparent. resulting delay in dice, from join in conclusion stated, I cannot For the reasons but, on reversed be should the order of the trial court should denying enforcement I order contrary, believe that the be affirmed. J.,
Schauer, concurred. A. No. In 19533. Bank. Oct. [L. 1946.] Minor, PEOPLE, Respondent, OYAMA, THE v. FRED Y. al., etc., et Appellants. *2 L. and Saburo Kido Tietz, Maeno A. Wirin
Wirin, & Appellants. for Fred Okrand Shirley, Marlin Green, H. Marshall, G. Sherwood
Daniel Hays, Fraen- Oswald K'. Wayne M. Arthur Garfield Collins, Ferriter as Amici Curiae and William E. kel, James C. Purcell Appellants. on behalf of Mattoon, W. Kenny, Attorney General, W. Everett
Robert Attorney Whelan, District Deputy Attorney General, Thomas Attorney, Carnes, District (San Diego), Deputy J. Duane Respondent. Joaquin), and Attorney (San Watson, E. District Chester Attorney as Amici Sullivan, Deputy P. District Robert Chief Respondent. behalf on Curiae ground EDMONDS, J.Principally changed the constitutional States Court has United legislation applicable as the tests to state such (Alien Property Stats. Law Initiative Act of Deering’s 261), the p. lxxxiii, Laws, Act amended; 1 Gen. validity again question Another challenged. of that statute is presented for the effect of the recent amend- decision concerns allows, ment of the federal certain circum- law which under stances, Japanese member of the race to become citizen of the United States. general, he attorney asserted by the filed petition In the conveyance in reason of its property, certain *3 Law, the escheated to state. has of the violation one, it pleaded. In the first was action were causes of Two Kajiro Oyama, formerly Kohide Oyama, Kohide
alleged that race, Kushino, are na- Kushino, Japanese of the and Ririchi subjects Japan and of Empire citizens and of the tives thereof, eligible not to citi- country and, by reason are that States; that Fred Y. of the United zenship under the laws Oyama Kajiro and Kohide is of Oyama is the son of and the 1928; in in Japanese race born California and that but was Japanese Kushino is of race and was born in June also the treaty in permitting 1921. There has never been a California agricultural Japan acquire an in a native of interest country. 1935, by appointment land of this Since of the Superior California, Court of the State of in and for the County Kajiro Oyama San Diego, duly quali- has been the guardian person Oyama, fied and estate of Fred Y. a minor. June age years Kushino attained the in and during her minority, guardian Ririchi Kushino was person of her and estate. Oyama continued, Kajiro and Kohide petition
In agricultural Diego in land San Oyama purchased certain conveyance of it was made County purported and one price of purchase Oyama. The Oyama to Fred Y. Yonezo Kohide by Kajiro Oyama and $4,000 paid to Yonezo purported Oyama. delivery of this Upon execution and possession deed, Kajiro Oyama entered into the Kohide and occupied and cultivated of the and property have ever since it beneficial as their in their own own, and have had purposes. agricultural for enjoyment use and of the lands in taking the deed purchase of the and subterfuge, Oyama a fraud name of Fred Y. a mere upon a violation of People of the State of California and the Alien Moreover, persons Law of these Land California. acted willfully, intent the own- knowingly and with to obtain ership agricultural and use of the lands for their own use. Oyama Kajiro allegations
Other of this count were that any superior failed to render for his account to the court re- ceipts guardian, expenditures and and has filed as Secretary report annual other account or with the of State required by Californa, Land section Alien Law. report guardian No account has been filed with the County Diego Clerk of San or served County district attorney, conducting affecting but in business the land in Oyama controversy, Kajiro Oyama” used name “Fred and Oyama,” “Y. and checking maintained in each accounts of those purpose evading names for the violating Alien Land Law. incorporated second cause action some the alle-
gations count, including of the first those having to do with race, nativity, citizenship and parties. status of the It pleaded then Superior Court of the State of California, County Diego, for the of San matter Guardianship Kushino, of June made order confirming county the sale certain described land in that Oyama from her to Fred purchase $1,500. Y. price Upon making recording Kajiro order, Oyama Kohide entered possession of into have since occupied and used their it as own and have had in *4 their own the agricultural beneficial use the land for purposes. All of these were done Kajiro acts and Kohide Oyama, willfully, knowingly with intent to violate the Law the State prayer of California. The the petition conveyed that the was land Oyama to Fred Y. be decreed escheated have to the state date as
respective that, deeds; against state, also as each of the asserting defendants forever barred from claim be title either parcel.
The petition upon grounds defendants demurred to that action, it did state facts not sufficient to state cause of a that jurisdiction, the court lacked that the Alien California Land unconstitutional, Law is the causes action that are barred the statutes of was limitations. demurrer overruled.
By answer, the admitted Japanese defendants the race and citizenship Kajiro Oyama, Oyama, Kohide and Ririchi Kushino, that, thereof, but they denied not reason are eligible to citizenship under the of the United laws States. They pleaded admitted the as race of facts birth and Oyama Kushino, allegations Fred Y. and June and also the concerning But guardianship proceedings. the answer Kajiro Oyama purchased prop- denied that Kohide Kajiro erty complaint in that described and asserted Oyama money purchase parcels the two provided property gift son. Each of the transactions his for their good purpose acquiring made for the faith and pur- and for the further earning son a means of a livelihood gift purpose. that guarding husbanding pose land, complaint agricultural described Oyama occupied, used Kajiro but Kohide have of it. use had beneficial nor it as their cultivated own alleged that defense, the defendants As an affirmative of laches. state should not recover because was the issues, John Kurfurst C. Upon the trial these Oyama and he had known only testified"that witness. He Japanese were When 1932. since about Kushino families land in con- coast, he rented from the Pacific evacuated Oyama. Fred rent to and, checks, paid the by two troversy name. endorsed that himto These checks returned were had Kajiro Oyama; he never heard the name Kurfurst had and stated “Fred” family as always father of the known the had received he But “everybody else him Fred.” called prop- notifying him that signed Oyama” “Fred á letter although Kelly Kurfurst Mr. to a being turned over erty name. himself refer to heard the writer had never Oyama, that at one time testimony Kurfurst was Other good piece have boy will day senior, “Some said: ’’ However, he going be valuable. that is because *5 referring to “Fred wrote, in he letter which in a admitted that He father. not the Oyama,” and meant the son he Yoshihiro Oyama, and belonged boy, Fred to the property knew that the boy’s running the Kushino; the father also that to June made were the checks whether But he did not know business. he did not young fellow” man or the out to the “old Oyama.” signed or Mr. boy it “whether know reports pursu- that no official showed records Evidence filed had been Land Law requirements of the Alien ant to the guard- that proved The state also the defendants. Y. Fred occasions, the father of two ianship proceeding, on leave of court to borrow guardian, applied for Oyama, as security in- as for the mortgage property money and granted. applications Both were debtedness. alleged all of the facts court found
Upon this evidence the of law drawn true. The conclusions to be petition 1937, respectively, that, from facts were as of these question vested parcels of title to the two and the defen- did to the State of California in and escheat making setting up enjoined from perpetually dants were judgment. appeal land. from that claim Alien Land contend that Law is un- The defendants purpose for the and ad- enacted constitutional because against solely persons in a manner discriminate ministered Kajiro Oyama, urged as to both of race. It is that because citizen, Oyama, due alien, and Fred a statute denies an guaranteed by I, article section process of law Constitution, I, article section California violates guarantees all Constitution which men the the same urged life, liberty property. point is also enjoy delegation Law constitutes unlawful legislative government, power to the federal and that citizenship” “ineligible vague, phrase, indefinite and constitutes,a process. denial of due citizen, argued Oyama, Fred it is
As to the Alien Land Law violates the mandate of California Constitution “granted privileges that no citizen or class citizens shall be which, upon terms, or immunities the same shall not be granted (Const., I, all citizens.” art. Considering § application Kajiro Oyama, the statute in its both and Fred continue, it deprives the defendants them of without equal protection them due of law denies process Oyama privileges and immunities deprives Fred laws and Amendment to citizen, the Fourteenth as a all in violation of also contend States. Counsel the Constitution of the United although upheld, been that, Alien Land Law has changed States Court has the constitutional United discriminating against applicable legislation test to state group and of race the “rational its members because from A present danger.” basis” “clear and deci- doctrine to that of approving contrary sion determination a statute bar a does not *6 at another time and under a different of circumstances. set Furthermore, by a Natural- virtue of recent amendment to the Act, persons Japanese longer ization of no birth are citizenship solely race, of Alien Land Law because and the Kajiro Oyama Army, inapplicable because, joins is if he may he become a citizen. rely upon
The defendants also the statutes limitations. of rights by they parties, As state the of the 312 of the section by of Procedure all actions are barred Code Civil some statute by 1-year, of limitations and the state’s claims are barred 10-year 4-year of 3-year, the and the statutes limitations. present within specifically, More suit comes section 338, of Procedure. Section subdivision 1 of the Code Civil an applicable code also is because this is “action the same statute, penalty other upon liability created than a a ’’ 4, Code Moreover, section subdivision of the forfeiture. remedy bars the since the effect of the Procedure Civil fraudulently. judgment acted Section is that the defendants provisions and the broad section applies, 343 also conclusion, action. In it is an escheat code include the same applicable laches is to' each the doctrine of contended that filed on behalf of Two amicus curiae briefs action. cause of principal develop in more detail the contentions appellants limitations. the statutes of regard the bar of upon decision of this attorney general stands court upholding the Court and United States that of the proper Land as a exercise the Alien Law constitutionality of policy the invariable power. It has been police of the state’s declares, against States, he to discriminate aliens United immigration and natu- purposes for classification by racial discrimination, and a rational basis There is ralization. eligible ineligible aliens is made and between distinction Moreover, of a “clear federal, state, test not statutes. danger” fundamental civil liberties limited to present presented rights and evidence was property no not The recent establishing discrimination. unconstitutional not abolish in- amendment to naturalization laws does eligibility race, regardless as the citizenship of aliens contend, only natural- privilege defendants but extends the during serving honorably ization to forces those the armed World War II. to the Furthermore, since title vested long Congress prior State of to the California act of attempted defendants, upon to be relied the later legislation can have no effect title. state’s regard
In limitations, statutes of state contends that section 340 appli- not Code Civil Procedure is the recovery cable to there neither imposition forfeiture nor penalty under the Alien Land Law. Section apply, subdivision does not be- “liability” question of cause no is involved. Subdivision same upon fraud, section deals with actions based only present which is suit; gist incidental issue in the of the action is that the state claims to have to land title are asserting defendants unfounded claims it. As to Procedure, section 343 of the Code of Civil the bar of that pleadings statute was raised no applica- it has tion proceeding. to an escheat
Considering section 315 Procedure, of the Code Civil attorney general position although takes' the there *7 express language is no in the Alien Land excepts Law which requirements its operation from provisions the of other of law, plain the policy of the wholly enactment is inconsistent application with the a statute of of Legis-" limitations and the lature has so in declared amendment to the statute. showing any And because there is no by delay, of injury the the doctrine of applicable, finding laches is not and the beyond appellate that issue is the an reach of court. The amicus curiae brief filed of upon behalf presents the state substantially arguments the same by as those advanced the general. attorney concerning right Alien legislates Land Law the to own
land scope in this state. The of the statute is much broader acquisition ownership land; than and the of it includes the right enjoy, use, “acquire, possess, cultivate, occupy, trans- fer, property inherit transmit and ... ... .have [orto] (§§1, or in use part 2.) in the beneficial thereof.” whole right given to and to all This is citizens of the United States eligible such; eligible aliens become aliens who are not citizenship enjoy under laws can the of the United States right only the in the manner and extent to the and the purposes any prescribed treaty existing at of the time government enactment of the statute between of the or country United States and the nation of which the alien subject. statute, is (§§ 1, a citizen or Section of enacted, originally parent as to an alien denied guardian become estate his native-born child (Estate Yano, and held invalid. Cal. 995].) Legislature However, P. in amended that section, guardian but allowing appointment of an alien guardian enjoying, directly or preventing such from either indirectly, minor. beneficial use of land owned guardian an provision requires The new to make annual moneys expended report showing all and re- court ceived, report upon copy of such district serve together hearing attorney county, of the with notice of guardian punish- renders report. to do so Failure by fine, imprisonment, both. able or guardian in the 5 directs the to file office Section county secretary state, and in clerk of the office situated, an annual in county property each which . him on describing “property . held ... behalf report . item . . when each of such minor; or . the date such alien control; An itemized possession or property into his came investments, rents, issues expenditures, account all such control of respect in the administration profits holdings cor- particular reference such "with respect in agreements . . . and other porate stock and leases ’’ Vio- handling products thereof. to land or sale of fine or by imprisonment, punishable section lation this both. statute, states amended Section 7
real, violation the act property acquired to, acquiring, of such “shall as of date alien escheat California,” the state of remain the become and “No provides: statute of limita 8.5, added Section any escheat or apply operate as a bar to action tions shall pursuant hereafter proceeding pending commenced now *8 provisions part a of the same enact of this act.” As Legislature a that it ment, declared “does constitute (Stats. law.” declaratory of, preexisting change in, but is 1136.) 1945, ch. legislation, where the
By provisions other character attempted to transferred of such be interest acquiring, pos- inhibited from alien “is transferring, cultivating, occupying, sessing, enjoying, using, conveyance transmitting inheriting it,” if the made or escheat,” or the “trans- prevent, intent to evade avoid “with therein, though or of an interest color- property, fer of real the State and the interest form, be as to able shall void conveyed sought conveyed thereby be shall escheat (§9.) By transfer.” the State as of the date such presumption that section, prima terms of the same a facie conveyance is made with such intent arise shall “ proof (a) taking of: in the name of person persons other than mentioned in Section two agreed or paid hereof if the consideration is or understood paid by alien be mentioned Section two hereof. ...” eligibility citizenship
The determination as to rests ex- clusively government is fixed by the federal with Con- gress in naturalization laws. Whomever it with endows may acquire to become a citizen and own land in California.
Eligibility persons, persons has been extended to “white nativity descent, indig- of African or descendants of races Hemisphere, enous Western persons and Chinese or persons of Chinese descent” includes native-born Fil- ipinos having honorable service our armed forces eligible. former (57 citizens who are otherwise Stats. In 1942, U.S.C.A. the Naturalization Act § (56 1001) amended Stats. 8 U.S.C.A. to extend the § privilege of naturalization “any to include person not regardless citizen, age, has who served or hereafter serves honorably military in the naval forces of United during present States war shall and who have at been the time of his or induction enlistment a resident thereof (a) lawfully States, admitted into who the United including possessions, (b) having its Territories and en- tered prior September 1, being the United . . States . unable establish lawful admission into the United States honorably beyond serves in such forces the continental limits of the United States or has so ...” served.
174 right regulate the tenure and has the
The state (Mott v. within boundaries. disposition its Hinckley, 718]; Blythe v. 127 434 P. Cline, 200 Cal. [253 263 Thompson, v. 197 787]; P. Terrace U.S. Cal. 431 [59 Fox, 94 15, ; 68 United v. L.Ed. States U.S. S.Ct. [44 255] 192].) power, 315 L.Ed. has the the absence It also [24 taking holding forbid treaty contrary, a to the the or Cline, by (Mott supra, p. property within aliens v. its limits 447; 245]; Blythe Y. Akado, 739, In re 188 Cal. 743 P. [207 Hinckley, 436; Thompson, v. supra, p. supra, p. Terrace v. 217) Legislature and our Constitution leaves the this regard power ineligible citizenship. (Cal. with to all aliens I, Akado, In Y. Const., 17; supra, p. art. re § right expressly Alien every The Land Law honors vouch by treaty and In all safed between this another nation. right cases own land in the United where States granted treaty, right foreign of a nation is such citizens recognized (§2.) fully protected. treaty “The be Japan that citizens provides tween the United States may residing in United lease land for Japan States purposes, it contains no pro residential commercial but authorizing Japanese an alien race to lease vision or acquire agricultural purposes. Consequently land for prohibits acquisition by . alien . . initiative law such ’’ (In agricultural land any situated in this state. re alien of see, supra, p. 740; also, Thompson, Terrace v. Akado, Y. 223; Webb, v. 263 supra, U.S. 232 p. S.Ct. [44 Porterfield abrogation treaty 278].) January 68 L.Ed. of this on rights 26, 1940, parties has no effect litigation. present People after enacted Alien
Shortly Law, Land brought enjoin general attorney from en- suit was provisions. plaintiffs complained they forcing its “unlawfully prosecution . . . threats of had been coerced entering agreements [pertaining plant- from into . . . cultivating, farming agricultural ing, of certain lands] thereby deprived of their without . due and . . equal protection . . denied law process of law and . fourteenth federal in contravention to the amendment legislation held It was does not constitution.” any provision clause or the state federal con- “offend obligation treaty existing or violate be- stitution empire Japan.” country and the As to this tween
175 contracts, said, quot validity cropping of certain the court O’Brien, ing from Webb v. U.S. S.Ct. [44 “Conceivably, contract, : L.Ed. use of such 318] population living cultivating might on and the farm lands come largely allegiance to be made up ineligible aliens. The strength farmers to the directly state affects its safety. (Terrace supra.) et v. think Thompson, al. We it power within deny the state to aliens privilege agricultural so to use lands within its borders.” (Porterfield Webb, v. 554].) Cal. P. The Webb v. O’Brien decision, pointed it was in this out
case, largely upon “rests principles safety broad of national *10 public Unquestionably welfare. farming of lands ineligible by give aliens would use, occupancy, them agricultural benefit of lands which in effect would amount deprivation to a use, enjoyment occupancy of its by the Any theory citizen. other incompatible would be with the occupation husbandry. . . . Racial may distinctions fur- legitimate grounds nish for classifications under some con- governmental ditions of social or (195 necessities.” Cal. p. at In Cline, supra, the case of Mott v. chal- owner-lessor lenged validity option of a provision lease, certain in a being the contention that the lessee an was alien. constitutionality As to the statute, the court said: “It has been firmly by settled the decisions of both federal and state courts . . . that adoption of the Alien Land Acts was a police power. lawful exercise of the In fact, it is the exercise of that power highest in its and truest sense. ownership by persons morally of the soil bound ob- ligations citizenship political is vital to the existence of a directly state. safety.” (200 It affects its welfare Cal. at p. 447.) status aliens in connection with ownership
real also considered the United States Thompson, supra. Court Terrace v. The court pointed there out that “two inevitably classes aliens from laws,—those result the naturalization may who may those who become citizens. The rule established Congress subject, on this itself, and of furnishes a rea- sonable basis classification in withholding a state law privilege from aliens the ownership of land as defined in 176 alien land law Considering an
act.”
the contention
Washington
our
enacted
similar to
State
own
equal
repugnant
process
protection
to the due
clause and
Amendment,
the court declared:
clause
Fourteenth
aliens,
legislation
equally to all
alike and
applying
“State
withholding
right
land,
cannot be said
from them the
own
arbitrary deprivation
capricious, or to amount
an
to be
transgress
process
the due
clause.”
liberty
property,
toor
Upon
equal protection the court held
subject
reasonable, saying that the rule established
classification was
subject
“in
by Congress
and of
on
of naturalization
in a state
itself,
for classification
reasonable basis
furnishes
ownership
withholding
privilege
from
of land
law
aliens the
decision that
as defined
act.” The
basis
broad
cannot become one lacks
“one who
not a citizen and
effectually
wel
in,
for the
power
and the
work
interest
may rightfully
state, and,
lacking,
of,
fare
so
the state
within its
deny him
to own and lease
estate
statute was
case,
In another
boundaries.”
the California
upheld
grounds,
that both acts
upon these
with the comment
(Por
respective states.
police power
were
within the
278].)
263
L.Ed.
Webb,
v.
255
68
U.S.
S.Ct.
[44
terfield
constitutionality
Other federal court
in which the
cases
considered áre:
Alien Land Law of California has been
California,
v.
78 L.Ed.
Morrison
U.S.
S.Ct.
[54
People
P.2d
Morrison,
v.
Cal.
(reversing
664]
[22
declaring
uncon
718], and
section 9a
Law
stitutional)
California,
;
v.
268 U.S.
S.Ct.
Cockrill
*11
490,
(sustaining constitutionality
pre
of the
Education v. 624 87 L.Ed. 319 U.S. S.Ct. [63 1628, 516 674], Collins, 147 and Thomas v. 323 U.S. A.L.R. 315, 430], proposition S.Ct. 89 for the that mod L.Ed. [65 protection ern doctrines law of of constitutional extend the the and Amendment First Amendment the Fourteenth 11 Legislature justifiably all cases where the find a clear cannot danger” present restricting liberty as a basis for the However, speaking the individual. Mr. Justice for Jackson, majority cases, clearly distinguished the the first these dealing between the test to used when fundamental be with
177
assembly,
press,
speech,
freedoms
include
liberties, which
argu
weighing
“In
rights. He said:
and other
worship,
distinguish between
important
is
parties
it
ments
Amendment as
Fourteenth
process
clause
due
Amend
First
transmitting
of the
principles
instrument for
its own sake.
for
applied
it is
cases which
ment and those
Fourteenth
with the
legislation which collides
The test of
principles
with
Amendment,
it also collides
because
only the
test when
First,
much more definite than
is
due
vagueness
Much of
Fourteenth is involved.
specific prohibitions
process
when
disappears
clause
regu
right of a State to
its standard.
the first become
include,
far
utility may
so
late,
example, public
well
for
power
impose all
concerned,
process
the due
test is
‘rational
legislature may have a
basis’
restrictions which
press,
and of
of assem
adopting.
speech
for
But freedoms of
infringed
bly,
such slender
worship may
be
on
grounds. They
susceptible
only
prevent
restriction
are
grave
danger
interests
State
and immediate
which
important
is
it
may lawfully protect.
It
note
while
directly
Fourteenth Amendment
bears
which
limiting
First
specific
principles
it is the more
State
govern
finally
(319
p.
this
at
Amendment that
case.”
U.S.
Collins,
639.) And in the more recent
of Thomas v.
case
supra,
Rutledge, speaking
majority,
Mr.
made
Justice
present danger”
ap
clear that
“clear and
test will
be
plied only
protected by
to those fundamental
liberties
Hospital
(See, also, Asbury
Amendment.
First
v. Cass
326
County,
61,
6];
U.S. 207
90
S.Ct.
L.Ed.
Cali
[66
Thompson,
v.
109
85 L.Ed.
U.S.
S.Ct.
[61
fornia
Gray, Inc.,
1219]; Clark v. Paul
U.S.
S.Ct.
Maryland,
1001];
L.Ed.
Hendrick v.
These cases the decisions the United States previously Court cited, including supra, Thompson, v. Terrace Webb, supra, v. limit test of a “clear and Porterfield present danger” to fundamental liberties and do not restrict the authority state, power, under its police to limit the rights of regard aliens in situated its within borders. It is sufficient if a rational basis found for the classification. And considering the Alien Land Law in con- nection with the record now court, before the no there is
178 unconstitutionally applied or
evidence that the statute administered. Legislature up eligibility
The of this has set state citizenship primary standard, and because deter as a the mination incorporated fact or in pri some condition this mary standard rests Legislature, elsewhere than in the requirement this not is to be measured another standard may subject under the control the state and which be change, delegation does not amount to an unconstitutional legislative authority. (Ex Gerino, parte 412 Cal. [77 ; Lasswell, P. In 1 Cal.App.2d L.R.A. re 249] 678], People P.2d therein; Goldfogle, v. and eases cited [36 452].) N.Y. 277 N.E. This court and the United States in Court the cited cases have held the “ineligible phrase, citizenship” use the does not con stitute process. a denial due in question passed to the State of Cali- fornia ineligible alien, reason of existing deficiencies the Oyama. and not in any the citizen The citizen is not denied guarantees constitutional alien, because an the purpose evading Law, attempted pass deficiency title to him. It is the alien father not controlling factor; therefore, the citizen of any son is the which guarantees Oyama constitutional to which citizen entitled may properly considered, deficiency be for the person in a other than himself is cause for the escheat. Property which citizen he lose, never had could not as the land instanter, acquired escheated to the state he nothing by conveyance Alien Land Law took nothing from him. findings
The trial court's regard to the violation fully supported statute are evidence. infer- ences to be drawn from the real property evidence conveyed son, thereby beyond it putting power property directly, the father deal with required father’s file reports guardian, failure of a unexplained de- father, failure one of the fendants, himself witness, presumption to offer and the Law, created section 9 the Alien Land are ample regard. Indeed, this convincingly points this evidence the conclusion that the minor son had no interest in prop- erty, his being only subterfuge name pur- used as a for pose evading the Alien Land Law. *13 by 1942 amendment urge
The defendants also that 1001), (56 Act U.S.C.A. to the Naturalization Stats. 8 § honorably every person who permitting the naturalization of during the of the United States served in the armed forces upon ineligibility naturalization based present war, all to in Congress purpose of race But the clear was removed. could not other granting privilege persons those who that Certainly military reward service. wise become citizens was to citizenship every Japanese eligible make the statute does not advantage provisions take of its national, and those who country for gain done our because of work well that status join its having qualifications to by and not reason I, Following privilege same World War forces. armed 388) (40 8 Filipinos 542, U.S.C. extended Stats. § did not eliminate amendment and it held not those naturalization; “as to requirements for basic on color qualifications, the distinction based possessing such Ysla Espiritu La (Roque De eliminated.” and race was not 296 988; denied, U.S. States, F.2d certiorari v. United upon 406].) The statute relied S.Ct. L.Ed. effect. by present in case has the same the defendants contention of the de- complete answer to the Another changes requirements in regard fendants in Law, in 1934 the that, is Alien Land naturalization under the complaint in first automati- land described count state, property conveyed cally escheated as to the Kushino, years the estate of June escheat occurred three upon dates, and Title vested in the state these the later later. legislation has effect title. no present proceeding claim that defendants provisions more of the barred of one or statutes Primarily, generally applicable civil actions. limitations upon section 312 of the this defense is based Code of Civil provides: actions, excep- Procedure which “Civil without tion, periods prescribed only can be commenced within title, accrued, in this after action the cause of shall have special cases, different where, pre- unless limitation is plain meaning scribed But the this statute.” section particular that the of limitations which found statutes are seq., et may section Civil Code Procedure by legislation an except be invoked as to action authorized provision limiting it which the time within which includes may And limitation” men- be commenced. the “different clearly be tioned in should construed to section include no limitation as to an action commenced under a statute specifies which that time not bar the its shall invoke provisions. purpose of the and unmistakable
The clear an People it was enacted since all times Law at place ownership of real has been to measure initiative ineligible beyond reach an alien in this state only prohibited from ac- citizenship. is such alien Not therein; any or interest the statute property, real quiring possess, enjoy, use, not that he shall culti- expressly provides convey He occupy may property, land. vate or therein, part, in whole or bene- have, interest land, any attempted transfer to an ficial use *14 provisions entirety- alien state. These are is void as to the they limitations; statute state inconsistent with a broad relating principles public policy ownership land any conveyance and declare that made in violation of the People mandate of the shall be void. 1945 made this construction certain. Legislature of apply operate of limitations shall or “No statute
It declared: proceeding pending action now any escheat as a bar to pursuant provisions” commenced hereafter 8.5.) (§ “The Law. amendment made this change in, declaratory not constitute a but is of, act does (Stats. preexisting 1945, entirety law.” ch. It 1136, § Legislature clarify provisions proper for the of a stat- manner, ute in and for this the court follow that construc- (Standard Johnson, 24 40, tion. Oil Co. v. Cal.2d 48 P. [147 577]; League 2d Union Johnson, Club v. 275, Cal.2d 278- 425].) P.2d [115 special- laches, defense of the court regard to
In ground. The was not barred that action found that presented tending prove evidence that no was. record shows the defendants injury reason resulted.to before commencement which occurred lapse of time (Alexander finding amply justified. proceeding Capital Ballagh Co., 619]; 9 Cal.2d P.2d v. State [70 Williams, Cal.App.2d 10,13 343].) v. P.2d judgment is affirmed. Schauer,
Shenk, J., Spence, J., J., concurred. ground judgment on the in the concur TRAYNOR, J.I cited Court decisions the United States they controlling until such time opinion main are are reexamined and modified that court. rehearing
Appellants’ petition denied November for a Carter, rehearing. J., 1946. for a voted A. No. 19755. In Bank. Nov. [L. 1946.] JONESI, JOSEPH J. BAR OF Petitioner, v. STATE
CALIFORNIA, Respondent. *15 for Jonesi, pro. per., Petitioner.
Joseph J. Respondent. Weil E. and Jerold E. McDowell Charles