84 Cal. 226, 13511, Abeel v. Clark

Docket Nº:13511
Citation:84 Cal. 226, 24 P. 383
Opinion Judge:GIBSON, Judge
Party Name:D. K. ABEEL et al., Appellants, v. D. C. CLARK, Respondent
Attorney:E. E. Bacon, and H. A. Powell, for Appellants. William Y. Jeter, for Respondent.
Judge Panel:JUDGES: In Bank. Gibson, C. Belcher, C. C., and Foote, C., concurred.
Case Date:May 31, 1890
Court:Supreme Court of California
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 226

84 Cal. 226

24 P. 383

D. K. ABEEL et al., Appellants,

v.

D. C. CLARK, Respondent

No. 13511

Supreme Court of California

May 31, 1890

         Mandamus to compel admission to a public school in the city of Santa Cruz.

         COUNSEL:

         E. E. Bacon, and H. A. Powell, for Appellants.

         William Y. Jeter, for Respondent.

         JUDGES: In Bank. Gibson, C. Belcher, C. C., and Foote, C., concurred.

         OPINION

          GIBSON, Judge

Page 227

         This was a proceeding for a writ of mandamus to compel the defendant, who is the principal of a public school in the city of Santa Cruz, to admit James Abeel as a scholar. The trial court gave judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiffs appeal.

         The only ground upon which admission to the school was refused was, that said James Abeel had not complied with the provisions of what is known as the vaccination act. This act provides, in substance, that the trustees of the several common-school districts, and boards of common school government of the cities and towns in this state, shall "exclude from the benefits of the common

Page 228

school therein any child or any person who has not been vaccinated, until such time when said child or person shall be successfully vaccinated; provided, that any practicing and licensed physician may certify that the child or person has used due diligence, and cannot be vaccinated so as to produce a successful vaccination, whereupon such child or person shall be excepted from the operation of this act." It is further provided that the trustees, etc., shall provide vaccine virus for children whose parents are not able to have them vaccinated, and that the expenses thereof shall be defrayed out of the school fund, and if there is not sufficient money in such fund to meet such expenses, a tax shall be levied for that purpose. (Stats. 1889, p. 32.)

         The appellants contend here that the act is unconstitutional, for two reasons: 1. The subject of the act is not expressed in its title; and 2. It is special, and not general in its scope.

         1. The constitution declares: "Every act shall embrace but one subject, which subject shall be expressed in its title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an act which shall not be expressed in its title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be expressed in its title." (Art. 4, sec. 24.)

         The main object of this...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP