San Francisco v. Spring Valley Water Works

This is an action for the recovery of city and county taxes for the fiscal year 1876-7. The defendant demurred to the complaint on the following grounds :

This demurrer was sustained by the Court, the plaintiff declined to amend the complaint, and judgment was entered for the defendant. From that judgment the plaintiff has appealed to this Court. It is conceded by the counsel for respondent that the form of the complaint is in accordance with the provi *574 sions of the statute under which the action is brought. (Stat. 1877-8, p. 338.) But they insist that the act is unconstitutional. The objection that the act embraces more than one object, .and that two are expressed in its title does not seem to us to be tenable. It has been decided in this State that the constitutional provision which declared that a law should embrace but one object, which should be expressed in the title, was merely directory. (Wash ington v. Page, 4 Cal. 388 ; Pierpont v. Crouch, 10 Id. 315.)

But it is unnecessary for us at this time to express our approval or disapproval of those decisions, as we do not think that this act embraces more than one object, or that more than one is expressed in its title.…