*1 Ago. Com. v. Co. L. [1] the commitment petitioner is mistaken a state hospital as with regard an insane the effect person. [2] indictment, aWhen person is if the defense charged with insanity crime exists, by information it must jurisdiction cause, and having presented to the court against any final collateral at is the of that court decision may con appellate is court appeal If an taken tack. question. thereon, when it becomes Its decision sider beyond final, judgment, puts fur if it the case affirms legality of far any court. So as the ther consideration charged concerned, habeas sentence for crime corpus jurisdiction appears on lack does not lie unless the ap If conviction. it face of the record of does pear presumed. propositions will These apply question also whether the court had proceed charge upon with trial criminal claim he was at that time unsound mind. [3] Af ter final, ques the conviction and become sentence have insanity tion of his at the time of trial cannot be raised corpus. on habeas petition corpus for a writ habeas denied. J.,
Lennon, Waste, J., Lawlor, J., Sloane, J., J., Wilbur Shurtleff, J., concurred. In January 27, F. No. 9556. [S. 1922.] Bank. (a al., Corporation), LUMBER YOSEMITE COMPANY et INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMIS- Petitioners, v. Respondents. et al., SION Injury Employee — Compensation Law Fatal Workmen’s [i] Employer Dependents—Payment to State—Crea- Without Legislature— Disabled Workmen—Power Fund for tion of power Law.—The has not Constitutional amended XX of 21 of article complete system and enforce to create vesting Act, notes, Ann. Compensation Constitutionality of Workmen’s 1. Cas, 1916B, 1286; Ann. Ann. 1915A, 247; Cas. 174; Ann. 1912B, Cas. S.) (N. A. 611; R. 1918B, 34 L. Cas. Ann. 401, 839; 1917E, Cas. S.) 1916A, 409; 1917D, R. A. (N. R. A. 466; L. L. R. 162; A. 51.
Jan. Yosemite L. Co. 1922.] Lstoustbiál pay to the require an compensation, workmen’s who has one of his a certain sum whenever of his in the course injury received by an is killed jurisdiction employment, employer therefor adjudicate Commission to (Stats. 1919, 273) so p. state, and the act *2 creating purpose of a fund providing, enacted for the persons and rehabilitation of promotion of vocational re-education the in- provide funds for industry in and to in this state disabled commission, is unconstitutional. surance bureau of [2] section of the constitution lature.—While, under the this state tion such tax would be jurisdiction thereof dustrial form Constitutional to raise a fund and commit provisions such Law—Fund under its Commission, cognizable only by fund, any of article Accident the administration benefit of general powers, gives the fob disputes commission. VI of the Commission Disabled persons might legislature power also courts established of the fund to disabled might — Power Workmen—Jurisdic- levy legislature might arise, a tax in industry concerning since no the In- Legis- some in PROCEEDING in Certiorari to review an award Industrial Accident Commission. Award annulled. opinion
The facts stated of the court. A. E. Bolton and Arthur W. Bolton for Petitioners. Adolphus Graupner, E. S. Webb, U. Attorney-General, Pillsbury Respondents. and Warren H.
SHAW, a proceeding C. J. This is in certiorari, under Compensation, the Workmen’s Insurance Safety Act 1917, p. 831]-, to review an order [Stats. the Industrial requiring Accident Commission the Yosemite Lumber Com-" pany pay to the state of California sum of $350 for Moore, the death of John who was killed an arising of, and in of, out the course said employment. Moore surviving left no him. order was made under of the act of (Stats. 1919, 273). p. question The sole for decision, the case, view is whether or we gives not the said act Co. adjudicate liability of the
commission employer to the state. provides employee
The act fatal that when receives injury, compensable provisions of a kind that is under the Safety Act, Compensation, Insurance and Workmen’s surviving any person and “does not him entitled leave treasury . benefit, into the death . . hundred and State of the sum three California fifty injury in dollars for each fatal addition provisions Compensation payments other of said under the ’’ average earnings exceeding Act, not annual three times the moneys employee, paid “shall be and that special fund known ‘industrial covered into a to be as the ’ hereby ap- fund, which fund is created rehabilitation (sec. 1). purposes forth this act” propriated for the set may It further declares that said fund be used promotion vo- Commission “for the Industrial Accident persons re-education and rehabilitation of disabled cational (see. industry 2); the remainder this state” left have fund after commission shall *3 they promotion as best used so much thereof deem “ placed semi-annually, the credit the accident shall be to by compensation said act” prevention fund, established Compensation p. 865). Act, (sec. 3; Stats. also sec. “shall have been accumulated five thousand dollars When deposited Compen- “with fund” be the it is to State in said revolving aas fund.” From fund sation Insurance “revolving payments required by fund” the afore- the made, 2, and be on sections to the order said Commission, Accident and the “state treas- the time, upon the from to order of the urer shall time commis- compensation said insurance fund from sion, reimburse state expenditures fund industrial rehabilitation made expenses revolving fund.” The of administration from said compensation carrying insurance fund in out state of the by imposed paid act are also “to be from duties fund,” rehabilitation all under the industrial di- said state (see. 4). given The commission is rection commission liability employer jurisdiction of such determine $350 him payment require the state in proceedings before it the same manner cases Compensation, Workmen’s Insurance provided Industrial Acó. Com. Yosemite L. Co. Jan. 1922.] Safety Act; “provided it after further” that at time paid claiming into he a treasury any person the state dependent employee may dependency establish thereupon to the satisfaction of the commission and required $350, dependent the said said (secs. whatever thereof claim necessary his to meet 6). (cid:127) prevention The accident fund referred to is used support “department safety” In- on carried (secs. 33-52, Accident dustrial Commission Workmen’s Compensation Act). insurance compensation The state Compen- fund mentioned is established the Workmen’s purpose Act for enabling sation commission to carry on employers, the business of an insurance carrier for respect to their under the act. provisions
It be seen from these that the makes will act compensation by provision per- no to the injured, son nor person. to the The of such “compensation” contemplated by only the act is to made when the workman who is killed no leaves dependents to be goes persons compensated, and it to other related to the deceased workman nor connected with his employer. goes carry the state to it on enable enterprise benevolent for the benefit of a class of workmen throughout provide the state—and to in- funds for the bureau surance the Industrial Commission. intent of act true is to for the of a creation general fund purposes. for these proceeding in ques- which the order or award in begun by tion was made was the state of California after death of petition John Moore. In its averred surviving person Moore left him dependent on him for support, nor person entitled to a death benefit under compensation act, that, thereof, account $350 was owing by Company the Yosemite Lumber state, *4 by and virtue of said act of 1919. of purports act 1919 upon
The to confer the commission determining to make enforcing orders and liability act creates. is contended behalf on of legislative authority commission that such power upon the commission found in section article is XX, of in claim as amended 1918. This Yosehite Co. Aco. Com.
is by has no petitioner, who contested asserts such effect. XX article
Prior to the amendment of of legis- appropriate may by read follows: as “The all part of liability lation and create a on the enforce injury employers any compensate employees for their employ- by employees their incurred the said course of legisla- irrespective ment, party. of of either the fault arising disputes any ture for the settlement of legislation arbi- contemplated section, by under by courts, board, tration, accident or industrial any agencies, anything in this either, or of these all notwithstanding.” contrary Constitution to following is as amended the section [Stats. p. hereby : vested expressly “The lxxv] by any provision con- plenary power, of this unlimited system create, complete work- stitution, and enforce a of appropriate legislation, compensation, by men’s and any part liability and behalf create of enforce persons compensate any or for or all of their workmen disability, incurred their for death and of their em- the said workmen in the course or sustained irrespective any party. A fault com- ployment, compensation adequate includes plete system of workmen’s safety general comfort, for health and and provisions dependent any and all workmen and those welfare of relieving extent of from support to the conse- them for any injury quences or death incurred sustained employment, irrespective in the course their provision securing party; full fault also for employment; provision safety places full such for hospital surgical, other remedial treatment medical, in- relieve from the requisite to cure and effects adequate against coverage insurance jury; provision for full compensation; provision full or furnish coverage regulating aspects, insurance in all in- its management cluding establishment com- fund; provision full insurance pensation otherwise ful] securing payment compensation; provision vesting power, an adminis- requisite governmental body with all the trative functions dispute arising legis- or matter to determine *5 Industrial Yosemite L. Co. Com. 779 Jan. 1922.] legislation such lation, to the that administration of end expeditiously, accomplish justice in all substantial cases any character; inexpensively, of and without encumbrance expressly all which social of are declared to matters public binding upon departments policy state, all this government. the state
“The plenary powers, is vested with legis- any disputes arising for the settlement such by arbitration, accident lation or an industrial commis- by either, agencies, sion, by any, all of courts, or or these may fix separately combination, either or and control dispute, the any the method and manner of trial of manner ren- rules evidence and the review of decisions designated pro- by it; dered the tribunal or tribunals vided, any subject all decisions of tribunal shall be legisla- appellate review courts of the state. The may provisions ture in one statute all for a combine system complete compensation, as herein de- workmen’s fined.
“Nothing contained herein shall taken construed impair any render ineffectual measure the creation the Industrial this and existence of Accident Commission of compensation fund, state or state the creation insurance of which, existence in them functions vested hereby ratified and confirmed.” power whether determine re paragraph ferred to the first im the above section and posed by against judicial any person this law power. exists (Western 411, v. Pillsbury, etc. Co. 172 Cas. Cal. [Ann. 390, Pac. 1917E, 491]; 156 Pillsbury, C. Co. v. C. Pacific 24]; Cal. Pac. Carstens v. Pillsbury, 172 Cal. [153 & 218]; Marin P. Com., Pac. W. Co. v. Railroad [158 1917C, 114, 171 Cal. Cas. Pac. 864].) It [Ann. new that the section claimed authorizes the creation of a employers liability on in favor of the benefit general, gives and that power on the Industrial jurisdic Accident Commission disputes concerning tion determine liability. paragraph part second is the purports give power, if anywhere it is contained in the section. gives It pur a tribunal create other pose judicial or with other power than settle the Aoc. v. Yosemitb L. Co. referring arising
“disputes legislation,” under such sec- legislation provided paragraph first apparent have is, when we ascer- therefore, tion. disputes that arise tained the Mnd character of the legislation part the sec- under the first authorized judicial beyond tion, which the we found the limits have Commis- *6 go. sion cannot legislature grant by new is the
The first to the section the grant complete system power of a create and enforce “to compensation.” of not authorize the workmen’s This does ‘1compensa- liability any person creation of a such to support require person contribute funds to tion,” any or to proposed purport touch the system. It does not to the subject of liabilities. legisla- empowers phrase
The the next of the new section liability “in ture behalf a on the and enforce that to create part any compensate any all of persons of and all to dependents injury disability, their for or and their workmen by workmen in for death said the incurred or sustained the the employment.” of This not authorize does course their compen- any person liability part of to creation of a on the persons, dependents of of other nor the the workmen sate workmen”, phrase persons. The “their other of persons compensated necessarily to to work- confines the be employ person who in is made liable. men who the if by provision workman is the that the This also shown injury employment, course his an of killed is made compensation “dependents,” to be his thus ex- is cluding idea ease liability of in such a particular a general, of workmen in of class or the welfare way workmen, of in no disabled connected particular injury. Nothing is for the is made liable who provision by the word force the use of to the added power a If the has to do certain “plenary.” merely always plenary. is thing, its to do it is verbiage. surplus “any per- of the words and all this clause use “any describing liable, words
sons,” those made workmen,” describing those to be and all their com- empower pensated, not show an intent to do against particular employer enlarge a liability Jan. 1922.] Yosemíte L. Co. Acc. Com. particular compensation injury as to include to workmen general class,, ap- as a or a contribution a fund be plied persons, to the a class instead of to benefit dependents injury. killed the workman who enlarged given
Nor meaning is phrase “complete system compensa- use of the of workmen’s tion,” opening in the definition clause, the elaborate or phrase that The section which the first sentence. follows liability liability: mentions and describes but one kind of compensate or their “any persons” “any or all of ’’ workmen. This is in provision compel person effect a say- form compensate is another Jf workmen, his which but ing any employer employee, compensate his an injury arising employment, out of employee, if causes death to him. language parts neither one section shows these expresses liability intent to ex- add another to that pressly stated. In “ex- these- circumstances the maxim altering” pressio wins, est exclusio applicable, and the. meaning only explicitly to be inferred is stated. particularly implied And it should not from inferred language thing that so novel and was in- different imposed tended state which is *7 act 1919. thought
That was no such there in the minds of those amendment, legislature who pro- framed the or of the that posed it, clearly argument by indicated the in favor of the pamphlet amendment in the distributed to the voters with the ballot at which the election at was the amendment adopted. proposed by amendment was the of 1917. "Code, Under section of the Political when the legislature proposes an amendment to constitution upon by state, the electors voted of the the author such amendment and one member same house who majority submitting ap- voted with the the same pointed argument giving as committee to an draft rea- adoption sons for the argument This amendment. printed pamphlet to be in a and distributed to voters sample ballot, with the to be used voter in preparing studying questions his and in vote which ishe (Pol. 1195a.) Code, act. sec. It is to be assumed that the arguments prepared the author of the amendment state Co.
fairly meaning of the and with reasonable fullness the produce. The expected amendment and the it is effect argument printed upon the the ballot and distributed with that fact amendment here consideration refers' to the Compensation in force for Workmen’s Act had been was, years; several as it that section express requisite scope of the “failed sanction for the complete plan,” enactment to amake and workable plan com- components, compulsory embraced, as essential safety fault, irrespective pensation for and death provisions, state, insurance and administration original contained system, and it then states that section meager only covering safety insurance, nothing ap- law in had administration; that force authorizing it, scope parently of the amendment exceeded designed give authority for the amendment was and that legislation' already plan then and to sanction enacted obviously revision in existence. This refers to the extensive original Compensation was en- Workmen’s Act that original act, session, acted at the same well as to the as attempted neither of which create as that such a suggestion in the act of 1919. There is no provided proposed amended section was intended argument that the impose any liability upon em- to authorize already provided from that a character different ployers of nothing original suggest section, voter by the carrying system was for for the benefit idea that it general levy or for the contribu- of disabled support system upon employers in whose ser- tions to having by injuries men were killed vice re- employment. in the course of their It cannot be ceived legisla- amendment, author of the supposed that the or the it, proposed intended to for such a scheme ture that illy by language of 1919 the act contained suggest idea as that contained adapted to inveigled voting into should be the voters them with argument presented the ballot which does it. even mention *8 purports employers to far as the act exact from a In gen- for disabled workmen in be used state to sum reality taxing in a law. a eral, revenue measure. It it employer pay requires any to the $350 sum of 783 Co. Jan. 1922.] Industrial v. dependents is has whenever one his no who employ- billed an course of his received ment, for vocational and the fund thus raised is to be used way any re-education workmen not connected go pay ex- surplus, any, if employer, and department bureau carrying or penses of state in on the Commission, Accident administered the Industrial “A purely public purposes. This a tax. tax money for charge upon persons property is a to raise 350.) A 20 public purposes.” (Perry Washburn, v. Cal. im- charge property, every upon persons tax “includes pub- posed by authority legislature, for or under the (Madera 181 Pac. Black, v. Cal. purposes.” lic [184 6.) Cooley Taxation, p. 400]; The amended design pro- suggestion contains no constitution extraordinary raising by a tax of such vide for revenue consider proposes. need not statute We character as this because question void a tax it would not be whether as opinion that the unfair discrimination. We are its language gives conclusion 'no warrant of the section kind. intended to for taxation that was amended [1] Our conclusion did is that section authorize the legislature of article XX, impose money to the state for the liability on an 1919. neces- It follows purposes specified in the act of legislature gives no sity that said section Accident Commission confer on the dispute may concerning the arise determine sought imposed by said act of employers to be 1919.
[2] be conceded that under its general powers might per- provide a fund for the benefit of industry in this state and ad- commit the disabled sons Com- fund to the Industrial Accident ministration of might levy a tax some form raise mission, also might any disputes arise concern- fund. But cognizable only the courts ing tax would provisions of article VI of under the by established gives the constitution section of since jurisdiction thereof power to (Pacific Co. etc. Pills- Commission. 24]; Western S. Co.. Pac. M. bury, *9 Ago. Com. Cal. 784 L. Co. v. [187 390, 156 Pillsbury, 407, 1917E, v. 172 Cal. Cas. Pac. [Ann. 218]; 491]; Pillsbury, v. Pac. Carstens Cal. [158 Corp. Com., Employers’ Industrial Acc. Assur. v. 935].) Pac. [171 Ind. Counsel for the commission case of State cite the 794], Newman, 222 E. as con N. N. Y. v. point. trary to our aforesaid. is not views as The case limiting provision The York constitution of New contains new power legislature create that state to VI. article such as contained our courts tribunals power of question is, discussed, which that we have legislature judicial power character of this to confer Commission, arise upon could not the Industrial Accident limita York, in New for that state has not the constitutional give upon legislative power which courts tions to create question our decision thereof. here and control rise to the imposition authority for the It further claimed that giving to the liability and for this XX, found section of article commission is 17% legis- legislature by appropriate may, reads as follows: “The wage minimum provide establishment lation, for the comfort, may provide for the and minors and for women employees. all general welfare of health, safety and a limi- as provision be construed No of this constitution upon authority of tation created, power now hereafter any commission legislature may requisite carry out authority as deem provisions of this section.” arguments printed the ballot for the election on adopted, indicate its section was that 1914, at which this a mini- authorize the purpose was to establishment main Nothing minors. wage women and whatever for mum subject upon any except arguments other in the said suggestion employers, good, bad as well as ais there proper living working compelled should part employees. The their for conditions “provide comfort, for the authorizing the general employees” safety was, welfare health, comfort, health, safety, refer intended to think, we during employ- employees time of 'their and welfare general provisions, no reference to have ment and to re-education of the vocational those involved, as are here Jan. 1922.] Shbmadá. Stark their pursue injured and are not able who have heen authority and occupation. certainly furnishes no former Ac- giving has no reference to levy contribu- Commission enforce cident raising revenue purpose of upon employers tions for the of em- carry for the re-education with which to a school ployees purpose. other state jurisdiction of the ground upon
We find no which the upheld. commission can be constitutionality
Many objections other are made *10 act, we but, stated,' in view conclusion above of the' deem unnecessary them. to consider ordered that the award of the Industrial Commission aforesaid be annulled.
Lennon, J., Sloane, J., Wilbur, J., Shurtleff, J., con- and curred.
Lawlor,. judgment. J., concurred Rehearing denied.
All the Justices concurred. January 27, A. No. 6915. In Bank.—January
[L. 1922.] STARK, Respondent, B. SHEMADA, v. M. Appellant. op [1] Contract—Sale Second-hand Seller Furniture—Default Damages — —’Liquidated not pro- Provision Enforceable.—A in a furnishings vision contract the sale the furniture of a case hotel the seller failed to deliver the furni- was ture he the sum of five hundred dollars as a forfeit enforceable, notwithstanding purchaser was an auctioneer goods and dealer bought second-hand furniture resale. [2] ings value, according common able. Id.—Second-hand knowledge commodity to their condition and Furniture—Market of extensive barter second-hand household Value.—It quality, sale, readily is a matter of with market hotel ascertain- furnish-
187 Cal.—50