California Historical Law Guide

Contents

Legal Ages at a Glance

General Principles

Two legal systems in one state

California ran on two legal traditions at once, and which one applied depended on whose property was in question. For almost everything, California was an English common-law state. The first legislature adopted the common law of England as the rule its courts would decide by, which means the old English rules applied unless a California statute changed them¹. For the property a husband and wife built up during a marriage, California kept the Spanish and Mexican system it had used under Spain and then Mexico. The constitution of 1849 preserved that system when California became a state². So the answer to a California legal question depends on the subject: common law in general, Spanish-derived community property in marriage.

Each spouse owned two kinds of property, and the difference runs through every California deed, will, and estate file. Separate property was whatever a spouse brought into the marriage, plus anything that came to them during it as a gift or an inheritance. It stayed that spouse's own. Community property was everything the couple earned or bought during the marriage, and husband and wife each owned half of it. The first question to ask of a California estate is not what share the widow inherited. It is whether the property was community or separate, because the two passed by different rules.

What a widow held

A California widow was provided for out of property she already owned. Her support came from her own half of the community property, from the family home, and from an allowance the court paid her while the estate was being settled. The state took this approach from its first year: an act of 1850 ended dower and curtesy for California³. Dower was the widow's right, under English law, to the use of part of her late husband's land for the rest of her life; curtesy was the widower's matching right in his late wife's land. Neither one gave ownership, only use for a lifetime. Because California replaced them with the community half, a California estate file records the widow's own share, the family home set aside for her, and the allowance she drew, rather than a portion of land measured out for her lifetime.

Land passed to children in equal shares. When a person died without a will, every child took the same portion, and the eldest son took no more than the others⁴.

Legal Age of Adulthood

Twenty-one for a man, eighteen for a woman

From 1854 to 1927 a man reached full age at 21 and a woman at 18. An act with the plain title "An Act fixing the age of majority of males and females in this State" set both figures, and said that a person of full age could make contracts, sell land, and do everything else the law allowed an adult to do⁵. An amendment of 1858 added that a girl under 18 who married with her parent's or guardian's consent was an adult from then on, so marriage moved a girl into adulthood early⁶. The Civil Code carried both ages forward when it took effect in 1873, defining minors as males under 21 and females under 18⁷.

From 1927 the age was 21 for both sexes. The legislature rewrote the definition to read that minors are all persons under 21, while leaving the lower ages for marriage in place⁸.

The date on a file tells you which rule was running. A guardianship over a girl that closed when she turned 18 belongs before 1927; one that ran to 21 belongs after. For a boy it ran to 21 the whole time.

Other ages that stood on their own

Several California ages sat near majority but were fixed by separate rules, and each has to be checked on its own terms. The age to make a will was 18, for either sex and for every kind of property, from the first year of statehood. The age to choose one's own guardian was 14. The age to sell land or sign a deed was 18: a person could own land at any age but could not make a binding agreement about it until then⁹. The ages for marriage ran on their own track and are set out below.

A married woman's position

Reaching full age changed less for a woman who married. Her husband managed the community property throughout this period, and until 1891 a married woman could not be appointed administratrix — the woman a court appoints to wind up the affairs of a person who left no will. A woman named in a will could serve as executrix even while married, but an unmarried woman who took either appointment and then married lost her authority on the wedding day. An amendment of 1891 opened the appointment to married women and provided that marrying no longer ended it¹⁰. Before 1891, then, an estate file showing one woman replaced by another partway through is worth checking for a marriage.

Marriage

Who was old enough to marry

Before the Civil Code took effect, the old English ages governed: a boy could marry at 14 and a girl at 12. The marriage act of 1850 regulated the ceremony and the consent of parents but left those ages where they stood¹¹. The Civil Code raised them, setting the lowest marrying age at 18 for a man and 15 for a woman¹². An amendment of 1921 rebuilt the whole framework: a man of 21 and a woman of 18 could marry on their own, while a man of 18 to 20 and a woman of 16 to 17 could marry if a parent or guardian filed written consent with the county clerk¹³.

Parental consent

A license needed a parent's consent whenever the groom was under 21 or the bride under 18 — the two ages of full majority¹⁴. A bride of 19 in 1880 was already an adult and needed no one's permission, so nothing in her license file will name a consenting parent.

The duty to collect that consent fell on the county clerk who issued the license, and the marriage itself stood whether or not the clerk did the job. Where a clerk handed a license to someone under age without the parent's consent and the wedding went ahead, the marriage was valid and could not be undone on that ground¹⁵. An irregular license is a sign of a careless clerk, not of an invalid marriage.

Marriage without a license, to May 1895

Until late May 1895 a California couple could marry with no license, no minister, and no paperwork at all. They needed only to agree to be married and then live together openly as husband and wife. This was a common-law marriage, and it was as valid as any other. An amendment approved on 26 March 1895 added the requirement that the couple's agreement be followed by a ceremony, so from then on a California marriage took a license and a service performed by someone the law authorized. The amendment took effect sixty days after it passed, which puts the changeover in late May 1895 rather than on 1 January¹⁶.

That change cuts two ways for a researcher, and both are useful. Before that date a couple with no license may still have been fully married, and their children were legitimate, so the absence of a record proves nothing. From late May 1895 the license and the certificate the person who performed the ceremony returned to the county are the documents to look for, and their absence means something. From 1905 the county sent a duplicate of each marriage record to the state, which is where the statewide index begins. A marriage that was valid in another state that allowed it was recognized in California.

One provision kept a group of marriages out of the county books entirely. A couple already living together, neither of them a minor, could be married by any clergyman without a license, and the certificate went onto that church's own register and nowhere else¹⁷. Where a couple who clearly married cannot be found in the county index, look for a church register.

Marriages the law would not allow

A marriage between close relatives was void from the start — treated as though it had never happened. The bar covered parents and children and their ancestors and descendants at every remove, brothers and sisters whether they shared one parent or two, and uncles with nieces or aunts with nephews¹⁸. A second marriage made while an earlier husband or wife was still living and the first marriage still in force was also void, with a narrow exception where the earlier spouse had been absent, and not known to be living, for five straight years¹⁹.

Race and marriage

Race was written into California marriage law in the state's first year, and each racial bar applied on the terms its own statute set for as long as that statute lasted. From 1850 a marriage between a white person and a Black or mixed-race person was void²⁰. The bar on marriage with a person of Chinese, Japanese, or other East Asian descent, whom the statutes called "Mongolian," arrived in two steps: first a rule forbidding the county clerk to issue the license²¹, and then, in 1901, a rule making the marriage itself void²². The legislature extended the bar to Filipinos in 1933²³, after a court had held that a Filipino did not fall within the earlier wording²⁴. The California Supreme Court struck down the whole racial bar on 1 October 1948, the first state high court in the country to do so²⁵. Because a barred couple could marry in a state that allowed it, the record of a mixed marriage from these years often sits outside California.

These lines shaped where different families' marriage records ended up. Black and mixed-race couples who were not barred married under the ordinary law, appear in the county and church records like anyone else, and their children were legitimate. A person held in bondage had no legal marriage at all; California recognized no lawful slavery, but slaveholders brought enslaved people west and a state fugitive-slave law of 1852 helped them hold on to them²⁶. A marriage by Native custom stood outside the county system and had no clear footing in California law, so the documents that name Native families in these years are the mission registers and the indenture and enrollment papers described under Property Ownership below.

Marriages that were valid under Mexican law were generally treated as valid after statehood, so a Californio couple's marriage is recorded in the mission and parish registers of the Catholic Church rather than in any county book.

Property Ownership

Which men could own land

Land ownership rested on the common law California adopted in 1850, and under it a free man owned land outright. Title could come to a male of any age by purchase, gift, inheritance, or devise — a gift of land made by will — and what he held was his to keep, sell, or leave to whomever he chose. The one age limit touched dealing in land rather than holding it: he could not sign a deed that would stand, or make a binding bargain about land, until he was 18⁹.

Being a citizen was never a condition of owning land. The 1849 constitution promised every foreigner who was or became a genuine resident the same rights to hold, enjoy, and inherit property as a native-born citizen, so a newly arrived immigrant stood on the same footing as anyone else²⁷. The 1879 constitution narrowed that promise to resident foreigners of the white race or of African descent who were eligible to become citizens under federal law²⁸. Since federal law let only white and African-descended immigrants naturalize, this set immigrants from China, Japan, and the rest of Asia apart, and it opened the way to the alien land laws described below.

Which women could own land

A single woman or a widow was a feme sole — a woman free of the legal limits that marriage placed on a wife — and she bought, sold, sued, and was sued on exactly the same terms as a man. A married woman kept her own separate property, but two rules governed how she dealt with it, and each of them left a document behind.

From its first year California required a public register of a married woman's separate property. A full inventory of what she owned had to be written out, signed, and recorded with the county, and recording it protected those goods from being seized for her husband's debts²⁹. Many counties kept these in a book of their own, listing land, livestock, furniture, and household goods item by item under the woman's name. For a woman who otherwise appears only as a name on a census line, it can be the fullest surviving record of her life.

From 1852 a married woman could get permission to run a business in her own name as a sole trader, keeping what she earned and putting it beyond the reach of her husband's creditors, by making a filing with the county³⁰. The filing names the woman, names her husband, and describes the business, and nineteenth-century examples show women ranching, farming, and keeping hotels and boarding houses.

Which children could own land

A child owned land from birth. Title could reach a child by inheritance, gift, will, or grant at any age. Selling it was the difficulty: a person under 18 could not make a binding agreement about land, and a deed signed by anyone younger had no effect³¹.

A child's land was therefore sold through the probate court — the court that handles the property of the dead and of children — on the guardian's petition and under a court order, with the money held for the child under bond. A single sale of a child's land leaves a petition, a hearing, an order, a bond, and a deed signed by the guardian instead of the owner. Where a California deed conveys a child's land, the guardianship file will name the family.

When a wife signed her husband's deed

Because California ended dower and curtesy in 1850, a husband sold his own land on his own signature, and a wife's name appears on a California deed only in the situations the community-property rules created. The husband managed the community property, and for much of the period he could sell or mortgage the couple's real estate over his signature alone. Two acts changed that, and each draws a line a researcher can use³².

So a wife's name on a California deed points to one of three things: the land was hers separately, the transfer was a gift of community property after 1891, or the deed falls after 1917. The 1917 line is the sharp one. Before it, a missing wife's signature on a deed of community land is the ordinary form and means nothing; after it, her signature is expected and its absence is worth a second look.

Deed formalities, the private examination, and witnesses

A California deed was a written paper signed by the grantor — the person giving up the land — then acknowledged before a notary or other authorized officer, and recorded with the county where the land lay. Acknowledging a deed means appearing before that officer and stating that the signature is genuine and freely given; the officer then signs a certificate saying so. Recording it is what made the deed good against anyone who bought the same land later³³.

Into the early 1890s a married woman's deed carried one extra step. The officer had to examine her privately, apart from her husband and out of his hearing, and satisfy himself that she signed of her own free will and understood what she was signing. This private examination was written onto the certificate³⁴. Later acts let a married woman acknowledge a deed on the same terms as anyone else, and the private examination disappeared from the certificates³⁵. A certificate that records one therefore dates the deed to the earlier era.

A California deed was complete on the grantor's signature and the officer's certificate. Where witnesses did sign as well, a witness of any age could serve, provided the person understood what they had seen and could tell it truly.

Enslaved people, free people of color, Native people, and immigrants

California came into the Union as a free state, and in principle Black, Chinese, and Native residents could own and inherit land. Several laws narrowed that in practice, and each either created a record or prevented one.

Slaveholders brought enslaved people west although California recognized no lawful slavery, and the state fugitive-slave law of 1852 helped them hold those people; it was the law at the center of the Archy Lee case³⁶. A person held in bondage owned nothing in law. Free Black Californians owned, held, and left land by will on the same terms as anyone else, and they appear in the land records accordingly.

Native Californians appear through two systems. The first is the Mexican land grant. A federal act of 1851 required every holder of a Mexican grant to prove the title before a commission, and the slow and costly hearings cost many families their ranchos³⁷. The case files these hearings produced are among the richest genealogical records in the state. The second is the indenture system set up by "An Act for the Government and Protection of Indians"³⁸. Under it a white person could take custody of a Native child before a justice of the peace and hold that child to 18 if a boy and 15 if a girl. An amendment of 1860 dropped the requirement of a parent's consent, reached adults as well as children, and made the terms much longer: a child taken under 14 was held to 25 if male and 21 if female, one taken between 14 and 20 to 30 if male and 25 if female, and an adult over 20 could be indentured for ten years³⁹. The indenture provisions were repealed in 1863 and the act was repealed in full in 1937⁴⁰. The act also allowed a Native person to be taken up as a vagrant and hired out. These indentures, made before justices of the peace and county judges, are often the only papers that name a Native Californian child in the 1850s and 1860s.

The eighteen treaties negotiated with California tribes in 1851 and 1852 were rejected by the United States Senate on 8 July 1852 and kept secret until 1905, so no land allotments and no allotment records came out of them⁴¹. The record that names Native families in the twentieth century is the California Indian roll instead. An act of Congress in 1928 directed that a roll be made of the Indians living in California on 1 June 1852 and their descendants still living in the state, and the applications that followed carry names, birth dates, parents, and tribal affiliation⁴².

Asian immigrants faced a different kind of bar. Federal law forbade immigrants from China, Japan, Korea, and India to become citizens, and California used that federal rule as a lever. An act of 1913 provided that a person who could not become a citizen could not own farmland or lease it for more than three years⁴³. A measure the voters approved on 2 November 1920 went further, stopping immigrant parents from putting land in the names of their American-born children and from being appointed those children's guardians⁴⁴. Japanese immigrant parents nevertheless placed farmland in the names of children born in the United States, or formed corporations to hold it. A deed handing a valuable ranch to a young child, and a guardianship opened over the same child, are often two halves of one arrangement and should be read together. The 1920 measure also required a yearly report, filed with the Secretary of State and the county clerk, from anyone holding such land in trust for an alien or a minor, naming the holder, the property, and how it came into their hands. In 1942 the forced removal of Japanese Americans from the West Coast produced a wave of hurried sales that show in the deeds. The legislature amended the 1920 measure in 1923 and again in 1943, and after the war the state brought escheat proceedings to take land it said had been held in violation of the law; those suits are court files that name the family and describe the land. The law was held unconstitutional as applied to a citizen child in 1948 and struck down in full in 1952⁴⁵.

Inheritance

A person who died without a will died intestate, and a statute divided what they left. Before any share can be worked out, the estate has to be sorted into community property and separate property, because each passed by its own rules.

Community property at death

The rules differed for a husband and a wife, and they changed in 1923. On a husband's death before 1923, half the community property was already the widow's own, and the other half was his to leave by will; if he left no will, that half went to his children rather than to her⁴⁶. On a wife's death, the whole of the community property stayed with the surviving husband without any court proceeding, because her half was not hers to give away⁴⁷. That last rule has a large consequence for research: when a married woman died in nineteenth-century California there was often no probate file at all, because there was nothing for a court to administer.

From 1923 the surviving spouse took the dead spouse's half of the community property when there was no will, so the survivor ended up with all of it⁴⁸. In 1927 the legislature declared that husband and wife held present, existing, and equal interests in the community property during the marriage⁴⁹.

Separate property at death

A spouse's separate property passed to the surviving spouse and the children in fixed fractions⁵⁰:

• With one child, the surviving spouse took half and the child took half.
• With more than one child, the surviving spouse took a third and the children shared the other two-thirds.
• With no children, half went to the surviving spouse and half to the parents of the person who died, or to that person's brothers and sisters if the parents were gone.
• With no children, parents, or brothers and sisters, the surviving spouse took everything.

Reading the two piles together explains an estate that looks lopsided at first. A file in which the widow took only a third is usually a separate-property estate, with her community half sitting outside the probate altogether. A file in which she appears to take everything is usually community property. A file in which she took half while the children took the other half is very likely a husband's community property before 1923.

The widow's protections

Three arrangements protected the family home and gave the widow support, and each leaves its own paper. A recorded declaration of homestead protected the family's residence from being sold to pay debts; where the home came out of community property it passed straight to the survivor when either spouse died, often with no probate at all⁵¹. The declaration names the person filing it, usually names the spouse, and describes the land. While an estate was being settled, the probate court could set aside a home and order an allowance paid to the widow and the minor children⁵². And a small estate could close almost as soon as it opened: where an intestate estate came to no more than $1,500 the court handed the whole of it to the widow and minor children and stopped the administration there⁵³. A very thin file, or one that simply stops, is often this rule at work rather than a lost record.

Minors, guardians, and the age of fourteen

A child's inheritance went to a guardian, who answered to the probate court and posted a bond. Guardianship came in two forms that appear separately in the records: guardianship of the person, meaning the care of the child, and guardianship of the estate, meaning the care of the property. The probate and county courts handled these in the early decades, and the Superior Court did so after the 1879 constitution reorganized the courts.

Two ages date a person here. A minor of 14 or over could name his or her own guardian, subject to the court's approval, while for a child under 14 the court chose one⁵⁴. A file in which the child does the naming therefore shows a child of at least 14. Guardianship then ran until the ward came of age: 21 for a boy throughout, and for a girl 18 before 1927 and 21 after, unless she married first. When the ward came of age and took the property, a receipt or discharge was filed, and that single document can fix a birth year within a few months.

A guardian was appointed most often because a child owned property, not because a parent had died. A guardianship opened over a child whose father was alive and well usually means property reached the child from somewhere other than the father — a grandparent, an uncle, or the mother's family — and the guardian is often someone outside the household. A parent could also name a guardian in a will.

Children born outside marriage

A child born outside marriage could inherit in California, and each of the four routes leaves a different trace.

From the mother, always. Such a child was in every case an heir of the mother and inherited from her as though born within a marriage, with no acknowledgment and no court proceeding needed⁵⁵.

From a father who acknowledged the child in writing. The same section made the child an heir of a man who signed a paper in front of a witness stating that he was the father⁵⁶. That signed and witnessed paper is a document to hunt for — in the probate file, among the county recorder's miscellaneous records, or with the exhibits in a will contest.

By the later marriage of the parents. A child born before its parents married became legitimate when they married⁵⁷. Where an inheritance runs to a child whose birth came first, the marriage is the record to find.

By a father taking the child into his home. A father who publicly acknowledged the child as his, received the child into his family — with his wife's consent, if he was married — and treated the child as legitimate made that child legitimate from birth, with no court order required⁵⁸. Because this route rested on how a man behaved rather than on anything he signed, the argument about whether it happened often surfaces years afterward in a fight over an estate, tried on the testimony of neighbors⁵⁹. Where a man denied being the father, the question was settled in a support case brought against him, and that file names him.

Wills, executors, and witnesses

The age to make a will was 18, for either sex and for land and goods alike, from the first year of statehood. The wills act of 1850 allowed every person over 18 and of sound mind to dispose of their whole estate by will, and the Civil Code carried that wording forward almost unchanged⁶⁰. A will made by anyone younger had no effect.

A married woman's will carried an extra requirement in the early decades. Under the 1850 act her will was good only with her husband's written consent, witnessed and attached to the will, unless a marriage contract or his written authority given before the wedding had already granted her the power. An amendment of 1874 let her leave her separate property by will on her own⁶¹. Where a married woman's will from before 1874 survives, look for the husband's consent attached to it — a signed and witnessed document naming him. Her half of the community property did not come under her own will until 1923.

A valid California will was written, signed by the testator — the person making it — and signed by two witnesses, each of whom signed while the testator watched⁶². California also accepted what the code called an olographic will, meaning one written, dated, and signed entirely in the testator's own hand, and that kind needed no witnesses at all⁶³. It accepted a nuncupative will as well — a spoken one — but only within tight limits: goods worth no more than $500, spoken during the last illness in front of two witnesses, and written down soon after, with more latitude for soldiers on service and sailors at sea⁶⁴.

A witness to a will could be of any age, so long as the person was competent to testify — meaning old enough and clear-headed enough to understand the oath and tell what happened, and a gift to a witness had a rule of its own. Where a will left something to one of its own witnesses, that gift failed unless two other competent witnesses had also signed; the witness stayed competent to prove the will either way⁶⁵. A legacy to a witness that fails is still worth noting, because it tells you the person who drew the will thought that witness close enough to the family to be remembered in it.

An executor — the person named in a will to carry it out — had to be of full age and had to post a bond⁶⁶. Read together with the ages of majority, that means a man serving as executor was at least 21 throughout, and a woman at least 18 before 1927 and 21 after. Before 1891 a married woman could not be appointed to settle an intestate estate, though a will could name her executrix; a widow could serve, since she was no longer married, but marrying again ended her authority. From 1891 a married woman could be appointed, and marrying no longer ended an appointment already held⁶⁷. Where a will named someone who could not serve, the court gave the job to another person, so read the letters the court issued rather than the will to learn who actually settled the estate.

Taxation

What was taxed

Four kinds of tax fell on individuals in California: a tax on property, a poll tax, a road tax, and two taxes aimed at particular groups, the Foreign Miners' License Tax and the Chinese Police Tax. California also charged an inheritance tax from the 1890s, and the valuation made for it in a probate file lists the people who inherited and how each was related to the person who died. The property tax was assessed county by county each year, and the resulting assessment roll names the owner of every taxable thing in the county, which places a family in one place in one year.

The poll tax, and who counted as a poll

California charged a poll tax, meaning a fixed sum demanded from a person simply for being a person rather than for owning anything. Lawyers called it a capitation tax, from the Latin for head, and the "poll" is the taxable head being counted. The first legislature adopted it in 1850, and the Political Code set it at $2 a year on every male inhabitant over 21 and under 60, with the money going to the state school fund⁶⁸. The 1879 constitution then required it, fixing an annual tax of at least two dollars on every male inhabitant of the state over 21 and under 60, apart from paupers, people the constitution described as idiots or insane, and Indians who were not taxed, and directing the money to the school fund⁶⁹.

The poll tax came and went, which matters when a list is missing. The voters ended it in 1914 by rewriting the same section of the constitution that had required it, article XIII, section 12, so that no poll or head tax of any kind could be levied or collected in California. The section was rewritten again afterward to require a tax of not less than four dollars on every alien male inhabitant between 21 and 60, paid into the school fund of the county that collected it, and a tax levied on aliens in 1921 was struck down by the state Supreme Court. In 1924 the voters replaced that with a direction to the legislature to levy an educational poll tax of not less than five dollars on every male inhabitant between 21 and 50, paid into the state school fund, excusing men honorably discharged from the army, navy, or marine corps and anyone already paying five dollars a year in property tax. The voters repealed the section outright in 1946⁷⁰.

For anyone hunting a list, the catch is that the 1924 provision only told the legislature to act, and the legislature never did. The argument for repeal printed in the 1946 voter pamphlet says the legislature refrained from levying the tax, and that the provision sat in the constitution looking like a standing instruction to impose it. California poll-tax lists therefore end in 1914 and do not resume. A man named on one belongs to the years before that, apart from the brief tax on aliens in 1921. A separate road poll tax of up to three dollars fell each year on every male between 21 and 55 found in a road district, with men honorably discharged from Union service in the Civil War excepted⁷¹. The road-district lists are another place a man of working age is named.

The taxes aimed at particular groups

The Foreign Miners' License Tax fell on miners who were not citizens. The first act, in 1850, charged twenty dollars a month and was repealed the following year after the collections collapsed⁷². A second act of 1852 charged a smaller monthly sum that rose over the years, and after 1852 it fell overwhelmingly on Chinese miners until its repeal in 1870⁷³. The tax collector's receipts and records are what it left behind.

The Chinese Police Tax, laid by an act approved 26 April 1862, charged two dollars and fifty cents a month on people the statute described as of the Mongolian race who were 18 and over. The California Supreme Court struck it down the same year, holding that it intruded on the federal government's authority over trade with other nations⁷⁴.

Courts

Jury service

A California juror had to be a citizen of the United States aged 21 or over, resident in the state for a year and in the county for ninety days, in possession of his natural faculties and of ordinary intelligence, able to understand English, and assessed on the county's last assessment roll for property belonging to him⁷⁵. That last requirement is the useful one: it applied to every juror, not merely to the talesman — the bystander called in at the courthouse to fill out a jury when too few of the summoned men appeared. A man who sat on a California jury owned taxable property, and the assessment roll for that year should name him.

Women and Black men on juries

Jury service followed the vote. The 1849 constitution gave the vote to white male citizens⁷⁶, so early juries were drawn from white men only. The Fifteenth Amendment made Black men voters in 1870, and from that year a Black man qualified for a California jury on the same footing as any other man. Women became eligible on 28 July 1917, six years after California women won the vote, when the legislature amended the jury law to admit them⁷⁷.

The age of criminal responsibility

A child could be convicted of a crime from the age of 14. Below that age the law presumed the child incapable: a child under 14 could be convicted only on clear proof that the child knew the act was wrong at the time, while a child of 14 or over carried full responsibility⁷⁸. The presumption could be overcome by evidence, so for a child under 14 the trial turned on what the child understood.

From the early twentieth century a child accused of an offense went before a separate court. An act of 1903 set up a juvenile court and moved children out of the ordinary criminal courts, treating a child under sixteen who broke the law as a delinquent rather than as a defendant. A new act of 1909 took the name "Juvenile Court Law" and raised the age to eighteen, so from that year a person under eighteen went before the juvenile court rather than the criminal one⁷⁹. From then on the record of a child's case sits in the juvenile court files, where it is usually closed to the public. The 1909 act also sent committed children to the Whittier State School and the Preston State School of Industry, whose registers name the child, the committing county, and often the parents.

Witnesses

Competence decided who could testify, whether in a criminal case, a civil case, on a deed, or on a will. A witness who understood the duty of the oath, took in what happened, and could relate it truly was allowed to testify, and a child of any age who met that test could take the stand. A child under 10 who appeared unable to take in the facts or to relate them truly was excluded⁸⁰. Children did testify.

Two rules reached particular witnesses. Neither husband nor wife could be examined for or against the other without that spouse's consent, and neither could be made to repeat what the other had said in confidence during the marriage⁸¹; apart from that, a woman was a competent witness throughout the period. Race barred certain testimony in the early decades. From 1850 a person the statutes described as Black, mulatto, or Indian could not give evidence for or against a white person, in criminal cases and, under the Civil Practice Act, in civil ones as well⁸². The courts extended the bar to Chinese witnesses in 1854⁸³. The bar on Black testimony was repealed in 1863, and the remaining racial bars ended with the codes that took effect on 1 January 1873. While they lasted, a case against a white party could go forward only on the evidence of competent white witnesses, which is why a California lawsuit from the 1850s can be full of depositions and yet silent from the Black, Native, or Chinese people who actually saw what happened. From 1863 for Black witnesses, and from 1873 for everyone, a competent person could testify whatever their race.

(Guide compiled by Jeniann Nielsen with AI assistance from Claude Opus 4.8 and Gemini Pro 3.1. Check primary sources as needed.)

Sources & Where to Verify

Every rule above is tagged with the law it rests on. The lists below show where to read those laws in full, and the reference works consulted, so anything here can be checked against the original sources.

Constitutions

• California Constitution of 1849. Art. I, § 17 (property rights of foreigners); art. II, § 1 (electors); art. XI, § 14 (separate property of a married woman); art. XI, § 15 (homestead). California State Archives, Sacramento. https://www.sos.ca.gov/archives (accessed 23 July 2026).
• California Constitution of 1879. Art. I, § 17 (property rights of foreigners); art. XIII, § 12 (poll tax). California State Archives, Sacramento. https://www.sos.ca.gov/archives (accessed 23 July 2026).

Codes and Compilations

• The Civil Code of the State of California, as Enacted in 1872, Amended at Subsequent Sessions, and Adapted to the Constitution of 1879; and an Appendix of General Laws upon the Subjects Embraced in the Code. Compiled by James H. Deering. San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney Company, 1897. The most-used volume for this guide. Each section carries a bracketed note of its amendments, so read that note before treating the printed wording as the wording of 1872. Digital images. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/1872civilcodecal00cali (accessed 23 July 2026).
• The Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California, Adopted March 11, 1872, and Amended up to and including 1906. Edited by James H. Deering. Statutory history and citation digest by Walter S. Brann. Consolidated and edited 1 June 1906 by R. M. Sims. San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney Company, 1906. Holds jurors (§§ 198–199), the qualifications of executors and administrators (§§ 1350–1354, 1370), the probate homestead, family allowance, and small estates (§§ 1464–1470), guardianship (§§ 1747–1752), sole traders (§§ 1811–1821), and witness competency (§§ 1879–1881). Digital images. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/codeofcivilproce00calirich (accessed 23 July 2026). For the rules as they stood before the amendments of 1891, see The Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California, Adopted March 11th, 1872, and Amended in 1885. San Francisco: S. Whitney & Company. Digital images. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/codecivilproced12courgoog (accessed 23 July 2026).
• Hittell, Theodore H., and Charles H. Parker, comps. The General Laws of the State of California, from 1850 to 1864, Inclusive. San Francisco: H. H. Bancroft, 1865. 2 vols. A second, corrected edition followed in 1870. The working compilation of the statutes passed before the codes, arranged by subject, and the fastest way to read the 1850s acts on wills, descents, marriage, sole traders, and taxation. Digital images. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/generallawsstat01hittgoog (accessed 23 July 2026).
• Johnston, A. J., superintendent of state printing. Index to the Laws of California, 1850–1893: Including the Statutes, the State Edition of the Codes, 1872, and Subsequent Amendments, and the Constitution of 1879. Prepared under the supervision of the California Commission for Revision and Reform of the Law. Sacramento: State Printing Office, 1894. Indexes the early acts by page and traces each one to the code section that replaced it, which is the quickest way to place an act passed before 1872. Digital images. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/indextolawscali00caligoog (accessed 23 July 2026).
• The Penal Code of the State of California, Adopted February 14, 1872, with Amendments up to and including Those of the Forty-first Session of the Legislature, 1915. Edited by James H. Deering. Legislative history by Charles H. Fairall. San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney Company, 1915. Holds the age of criminal responsibility (§ 26). Digital images. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/penalcodeofstate00cali (accessed 23 July 2026).
• The Political Code of the State of California, as Enacted in 1872, and Amended up to and including 1897. By James H. Deering. San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney Co., 1897. Holds the poll tax (§§ 3839, 3861) and the road poll tax (§ 2652). Digital images. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/politicalcodeofs00cali (accessed 23 July 2026).

Session Laws

• "Abolition of Poll Tax." Initiative amendment to article XIII, section 12, of the Constitution, certified by the Secretary of State 6 January 1914 and carried at the general election of November 1914. Ends the poll tax that the 1879 constitution had required, which is why county poll-tax lists stop after 1914. Digital images. UC Law SF Scholarship Repository, California Ballot Propositions and Initiatives, Initiative 1914-a-1. https://repository.uclawsf.edu/ca_ballot_inits/7 (accessed 23 July 2026).
• Amendments to the Codes of California. The volumes of code amendments cited in the notes, each to be read for its session: 1873–4 (Civil Code §§ 33, 215, 1273, 1282, 1401, 1402); 1877–8, p. 75 (Civil Code § 79); and 1880, p. 3 and p. 17 (Civil Code §§ 69–70 and Political Code § 3839). Digital images. California State Assembly, Office of the Chief Clerk (accessed 23 July 2026).
• An Act Relating to the Rights, Powers and Disabilities of Aliens ... With Respect to Property in This State (the Alien Land Law). Initiative measure adopted at the general election of 2 November 1920. The initiative that closed the gaps left by the 1913 act: it barred an alien ineligible to citizenship from being a citizen child's guardian, required a yearly report of such holdings to the Secretary of State and the county clerk, and voided transfers made to evade the act. Digital images. UC Law SF Scholarship Repository, California Ballot Propositions and Initiatives, Initiative 1920-a-2. https://repository.uclawsf.edu/ca_ballot_inits/35 (accessed 23 July 2026).
• "Poll Taxes." Assembly Constitutional Amendment 47, Proposition 13 on the ballot of 1924. Directed the legislature to levy an educational poll tax; the direction was never carried out, which is why no lists follow it. Prints the alien poll-tax provision it replaced. Digital images. UC Law SF Scholarship Repository, California Ballot Propositions and Initiatives, Proposition 13 (1924). https://repository.uclawsf.edu/ca_ballot_props/194 (accessed 23 July 2026).
• "Repeal of Educational Poll Tax." Assembly Constitutional Amendment 28, Proposition 16 on the ballot of 1946. Repealed article XIII, section 12, and its printed argument sets out the history of the tax from 1872 forward. The same pamphlet carries Proposition 15, on the Alien Land Law, which recites the 1920 initiative and its amendments of 1923 and 1943. Digital images. UC Law SF Scholarship Repository, California Ballot Propositions and Initiatives, Proposition 16 (1946). https://repository.uclawsf.edu/ca_ballot_props/468 (accessed 23 July 2026).
• The Statutes of California, Passed at the First Session of the Legislature. San José: J. Winchester, State Printer, 1850. The founding volume for this guide: ch. 72 (wills), ch. 95 (adopting the common law), ch. 97 (foreign miners' license tax), ch. 99 (criminal proceedings, § 14 the testimony bar), ch. 103 (rights and duties of husband and wife, §§ 3–5 the separate-property inventory and § 10 ending dower and curtesy), ch. 133 (the Indians act, p. 408), ch. 140 (marriages, p. 424), ch. 142 (the Civil Practice Act), and the descents act at p. 219. Digital images. California State Assembly, Office of the Chief Clerk. https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/archive-list?archive_type=statutes (accessed 23 July 2026). Transcription, with a chapter list, at Wikisource, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Statutes_of_California,_1850 (accessed 23 July 2026).
• The Statutes of California, Passed at the Second Session of the Legislature. San Francisco: G. K. Fitch & Co. and V. E. Geiger & Co., State Printers, 1852. Ch. 37 (foreign miners' license tax) and ch. 42 (married women as sole traders). Digital images. California State Assembly, Office of the Chief Clerk (accessed 23 July 2026).
• The Statutes of California. Later sessions, each to be read in the volume for its year, where the imprint varies from session to session and should be taken from that volume's own title page: 1854, ch. 39, p. 44, and 1858, p. 108 (age of majority); 1860, ch. 231 (the Indians act amended); 1862, p. 669 (descents amended), and ch. 339, p. 462 (the Chinese police tax); 1901, p. 335, and 1933, p. 561 (the racial marriage bars in Civil Code § 60); 1891, p. 137 and p. 425, and 1895, p. 47 and p. 88 (acknowledgments, gifts of community property, and the end of marriage without a ceremony); 1903, ch. 43, p. 44, and 1909, ch. 133, p. 213 (juvenile courts); 1913, ch. 113 (the alien land law; extended by the initiative of 2 November 1920, listed below); 1917, ch. 583, § 2, p. 829 (a wife's signature on community real estate), and ch. 694, p. 1288 (women admitted to jury service); 1921, ch. 233, p. 333 (marriage ages, Civil Code § 56); 1923, ch. 18 (the surviving spouse's share of the community); 1927, ch. 265, § 1, p. 484, and ch. 661, p. 1119 (equal community interests, and majority at 21 for both sexes); 1937, ch. 269 (the Indians act repealed); and 1891, p. 11 (married women as administratrices). Digital images. California State Assembly, Office of the Chief Clerk (accessed 23 July 2026).
• United States. Statutes at Large. Act of 3 March 1851, 9 Stat. 631 (the commission on Mexican land grants), and the California Indian Jurisdictional Act, Act of 18 May 1928, ch. 624, 45 Stat. 602.

Court Cases

• Encinas v. Lowthian Freight Lines. 69 Cal. App. 2d 156 (1945).
• Estate of Lund. 26 Cal. 2d 472 (1945).
• Guardianship of Ambrose. 170 Cal. 160 (1915).
• Hakes Investment Co. v. Lyons. 166 Cal. 557 (1913).
• In re Archy. 9 Cal. 147 (1858).
• Johnson v. Alexander. 39 Cal. App. 177 (1918).
• Lin Sing v. Washburn. 20 Cal. 534 (1862).
• Oyama v. California. 332 U.S. 633 (1948).
• People ex rel. Attorney-General v. Naglee. 1 Cal. 232 (1850).
• People v. Hall. 4 Cal. 399 (1854).
• Perez v. Sharp. 32 Cal. 2d 711 (1948). https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2d/32/711.html (accessed 23 July 2026).
• Roldan v. Los Angeles County. 129 Cal. App. 267 (1933). https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3292597/roldan-v-los-angeles-county/ (accessed 23 July 2026).
• Sei Fujii v. State. 38 Cal. 2d 718 (1952). https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1182633/sei-fujii-v-state-of-california/ (accessed 23 July 2026).
• Vaughn v. Vaughn. 62 Cal. App. 2d 260 (1944).

Secondary and Reference Works

• "California Land and Property." FamilySearch Research Wiki. On the commission on Mexican land grants and the case files it produced. https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/California_Land_and_Property (accessed 23 July 2026).
• California State Archives. Sacramento. Holds county records transferred to the state, including indentures made under the 1850 Indians act, and the constitutions. https://www.sos.ca.gov/archives (accessed 23 July 2026).
• Johnston-Dodds, Kimberly. Early California Laws and Policies Related to California Indians. CRB 02-014. Sacramento: California Research Bureau, California State Library, 2002. Prints the enrolled text of the 1850 Indians act and the 1860 amendment. https://tribalaffairs.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/11/2002-Early-California-Laws-and-Policies-Related-to-California-I.pdf (accessed 23 July 2026).
• National Archives and Records Administration. "California Indian Enrollment Records: Judgment Rolls and Applications." Describes the applications filed under the 1928 act (microfilm publication M1853, 1928–1933) and the 1948 enrollment (M1841), and the fields they record: English and Indian name, family relationship, sex, age in 1928, date of birth, degree of Indian blood, tribe or band, place of enrollment or allotment, post office, and property owned. https://www.archives.gov/research/native-americans/rolls/california-judgment-rolls (accessed 23 July 2026).
• National Archives and Records Administration. Records of the War Relocation Authority, Record Group 210. The case files name every member of a family removed from the West Coast in 1942, with birth dates and birthplaces.
• Online Archive of California. "California Private Land Claims Collection, 1852–1884." A published inventory of the case files generated by the commission on Mexican land grants. https://oac.cdlib.org (accessed 23 July 2026).
• U.S. Women's Bureau. The Legal Status of Women in the United States of America: January 1, 1948, Report for California. Bulletin 157-4, revised. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1950. A digest of California law on majority, married women's property, wills, intestacy, guardianship, marriage, and jury service, with citations to the code then in force. Use it as a cross-check and confirm each citation against the statute itself. FRASER, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5430 (accessed 23 July 2026).

Citations

1. "An Act adopting the Common Law," The Statutes of California, Passed at the First Session of the Legislature (San José: J. Winchester, State Printer, 1850), ch. 95, approved 13 April 1850; digital images, California State Assembly, Office of the Chief Clerk (https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/archive-list?archive_type=statutes : accessed 23 July 2026). The rule is carried today at Civil Code § 22.2 ↩
2. California Constitution of 1849, art. XI, § 14; "An Act defining the rights and duties of Husband and Wife," Statutes of California, 1850, ch. 103, approved 17 April 1850 ↩
3. Statutes of California, 1850, ch. 103, § 10; the rule stands in the codes as Civil Code § 173, "No estate is allowed the husband as tenant by courtesy upon the death of his wife, nor is any estate in dower allotted to the wife upon the death of her husband," read here in The Civil Code of the State of California, as Enacted in 1872, Amended at Subsequent Sessions, and Adapted to the Constitution of 1879, comp. James H. Deering (San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney Company, 1897); digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/1872civilcodecal00cali : accessed 23 July 2026) ↩
4. "An Act to regulate Descents and Distributions," Statutes of California, 1850, p. 219; carried into the codes as Civil Code § 1386 ↩
5. "An Act fixing the age of Majority of Males and Females in this State," Statutes of California, 1854, ch. 39, p. 44, passed 10 May 1854: "Males shall be deemed of full and legal age when they shall be twenty-one years old, and females when they shall be eighteen years old," and persons of legal age are "competent to make contracts, convey real estate, and do all other acts and things that persons of full age may legally do"; digital images, California State Assembly, Office of the Chief Clerk (https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/archive/Statutes/1854/1854.PDF : accessed 23 July 2026) ↩
6. Statutes of California, 1858, p. 108 ↩
7. Civil Code § 25: "Minors are: 1. Males under twenty-one years of age; 2. Females under eighteen years of age" ↩
8. Statutes of California, 1927, ch. 661, p. 1119, amending Civil Code § 25 to define minors as all persons under twenty-one; digital images, California State Assembly, Office of the Chief Clerk (https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/archive/Statutes/1927/27vol1_Chapters.pdf : accessed 23 July 2026) ↩
9. Civil Code § 33, as amended 30 March 1874, Amendments to the Codes, 1873–4, p. 182, in effect 1 July 1874: a minor "cannot give a delegation of power, nor under the age of eighteen, make a contract relating to real property, or any interest therein"; applied in Hakes Investment Co. v. Lyons, 166 Cal. 557 (1913) ↩ ↩
10. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1352, 1370, read here in The Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California, Adopted March 11, 1872, and Amended up to and including 1906, ed. James H. Deering, statutory history by Walter S. Brann, consolidated and edited 1 June 1906 by R. M. Sims (San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney Company, 1906); digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeofcivilproce00calirich : accessed 23 July 2026). The 1885 edition of the code carries the earlier rule at § 1352 — an unmarried woman executrix or administratrix marrying, her authority ceases; a married woman named may be executrix, but not administratrix — and § 1370 was amended in 1891 (Statutes of California, 1891, p. 11) to read that a married woman may be appointed administratrix and that an unmarried administratrix who marries does not thereby lose her authority ↩
11. "An Act regulating Marriages," Statutes of California, 1850, ch. 140, p. 424, § 7 ↩
12. Civil Code § 56: "Any unmarried male of the age of eighteen years or upwards, and any unmarried female of the age of fifteen years or upwards, and not otherwise disqualified, are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage" ↩
13. An act to amend section fifty-six of the Civil Code, relating to the capability of minors to contract marriage, Statutes of California, 1921, ch. 233, p. 333, approved 23 May 1921, in effect 29 July 1921: any unmarried male of 21 or upwards and any unmarried female of 18 or upwards, not otherwise disqualified, is capable of consenting to and consummating marriage; a male under 21 and over 18, or a female under 18 and over 16, is capable with the written consent of a parent or guardian filed by the clerk issuing the license under Civil Code § 69; digital images, California State Assembly, Office of the Chief Clerk (https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/archive/Statutes/1921/21Vol1_Chapters.pdf : accessed 23 July 2026) ↩
14. Civil Code § 69, requiring the license to show the parties' ages and, "if the male be under the age of twenty-one, or the female under the age of eighteen years, the consent of the father, mother, or guardian," the written consent to be filed by the clerk ↩
15. Civil Code § 68, as amended 26 March 1895, Statutes of California, 1895, p. 88: marriage must be licensed, solemnized, authenticated, and recorded as the article provides, "but noncompliance with its provisions by other than the parties to a marriage does not invalidate that marriage"; see also Guardianship of Ambrose, 170 Cal. 160 (1915); Johnson v. Alexander, 39 Cal. App. 177 (1918); Vaughn v. Vaughn, 62 Cal. App. 2d 260 (1944) ↩
16. Civil Code § 55, as amended 26 March 1895, Statutes of California, 1895, p. 88, the code noting the amendment "in effect in sixty days" — that is, on or about 25 May 1895 ↩
17. Civil Code § 79, new section approved 6 February 1878, Amendments to the Codes, 1877–8, p. 75, in effect immediately: unmarried persons, not minors, who have been living together as man and wife "may, without a license, be married by any clergyman," the certificate to be recorded on that church's records, and "no other record need be made" ↩
18. Civil Code § 59: marriages between parents and children, ancestors and descendants of every degree, brothers and sisters of the half as well as the whole blood, and uncles with nieces or aunts with nephews "are incestuous, and void from the beginning" ↩
19. Civil Code § 61, the exception running to a former spouse "absent, and not known to such person to be living for the space of five successive years" ↩
20. Statutes of California, 1850, ch. 140, p. 424 ↩
21. Civil Code § 69, as amended 6 April 1880, Amendments to the Codes, 1880, p. 3, in effect immediately, forbidding the clerk to "issue a license authorizing the marriage of a white person with a negro, mulatto, or Mongolian" ↩
22. Civil Code § 60, which in the 1897 edition still read "All marriages of white persons with negroes or mulattoes are illegal and void"; amended to reach Mongolians by Statutes of California, 1901, p. 335, as recited in Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711 (1948) ↩
23. Statutes of California, 1933, p. 561, recited in Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711 ↩
24. Roldan v. Los Angeles County, 129 Cal. App. 267 (1933) ↩
25. Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711 (1948), decided 1 October 1948 ↩
26. In re Archy, 9 Cal. 147 (1858) ↩
27. California Constitution of 1849, art. I, § 17 ↩
28. California Constitution of 1879, art. I, § 17 ↩
29. California Constitution of 1849, art. XI, § 14; Statutes of California, 1850, ch. 103, §§ 3–5 ↩
30. "An Act to authorize married women to transact business in their own name as Sole Traders," The Statutes of California, Passed at the Second Session of the Legislature (San Francisco: G. K. Fitch & Co. and V. E. Geiger & Co., State Printers, 1852), ch. 42, approved 12 April 1852; carried into the codes as Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1811–1821 ↩
31. Civil Code § 33 ↩
32. Civil Code § 172, as amended 31 March 1891, Statutes of California, 1891, p. 425: the husband has management and control of the community property, "provided, however, that he cannot make a gift of such community property, or convey the same without a valuable consideration, unless the wife, in writing, consent thereto"; the wife's signature was required on any sale, mortgage, or long lease by Statutes of California, 1917, ch. 583, § 2, p. 829, adding Civil Code § 172a ↩
33. Civil Code §§ 1091, 1161, 1213–1215 ↩
34. Civil Code § 1186: a married woman's acknowledgment "must not be taken, unless she is made acquainted by the officer with the contents of the instrument on an examination without the hearing of her husband" ↩
35. Civil Code § 1187, as amended 19 March 1891, Statutes of California, 1891, p. 137, in effect immediately: "A conveyance by a married woman has the same effect as if she were unmarried, and may be acknowledged in the same manner" ↩
36. In re Archy, 9 Cal. 147 ↩
37. Act of 3 March 1851, 9 Stat. 631. Sources differ on whether this act is chapter 40 or chapter 41; take the chapter from the page in the Statutes at Large ↩
38. "An Act for the Government and Protection of Indians," Statutes of California, 1850, ch. 133, p. 408, approved 22 April 1850 ↩
39. Statutes of California, 1860, ch. 231, approved 18 April 1860, printed in full in Kimberly Johnston-Dodds, Early California Laws and Policies Related to California Indians, CRB 02-014 (Sacramento: California Research Bureau, California State Library, 2002) ↩
40. The indenture section was repealed in 1863 and the act repealed in full by Statutes of California, 1937, ch. 269. Neither the 1863 chapter nor the 1937 chapter is confirmed here; read the repealing acts in the 1863 and 1937 session laws ↩
41. The Senate rejected all eighteen treaties on 8 July 1852 and placed them under an injunction of secrecy that was lifted in January 1905 ↩
42. California Indian Jurisdictional Act, Act of 18 May 1928, ch. 624, 45 Stat. 602 ↩
43. Statutes of California, 1913, ch. 113, approved 19 May 1913 ↩
44. An Act Relating to the Rights, Powers and Disabilities of Aliens and of Certain Companies, Associations and Corporations With Respect to Property in This State, Providing for Escheats in Certain Cases, Prescribing the Procedure Therein, Requiring Reports of Certain Property Holdings to Facilitate the Enforcement of This Act, Prescribing Penalties for Violation of the Provisions Hereof, and Repealing All Acts or Parts of Acts Inconsistent or in Conflict Herewith (the Alien Land Law), initiative measure adopted at the general election of 2 November 1920 — a date recited in the text of Senate Constitutional Amendment 17, Proposition 15 on the ballot of 1946, which describes the act as approved by the electorate on that day — sec. 4 (an alien ineligible to citizenship may not be appointed guardian of the part of a minor's estate made up of property the alien may not hold, and the public administrator may be named guardian of a citizen child whose parents are ineligible), sec. 5 (every trustee holding such property for an alien or a minor must file a verified report each year, by 31 January, with the Secretary of State and the county clerk), and sec. 9 (a transfer colorable in form is void where made to evade the act, with a presumption of evasion where land is taken in another's name but paid for by an ineligible alien); digital images, UC Law SF Scholarship Repository, California Ballot Propositions and Initiatives, Initiative 1920-a-2 (https://repository.uclawsf.edu/ca_ballot_inits/35 : accessed 23 July 2026) ↩
45. The amendments of 20 June 1923 and 8 June 1943, and the escheat proceedings brought under the act, are recited in Senate Constitutional Amendment 17, Proposition 15 on the ballot of 1946, a measure to confirm those amendments; the argument against it, by the Japanese American Citizens League, describes escheat suits then pending against Japanese American farm properties. Digital images, UC Law SF Scholarship Repository, California Ballot Propositions and Initiatives, Proposition 16 (1946) (https://repository.uclawsf.edu/ca_ballot_props/468 : accessed 23 July 2026). See Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633 (1948); Sei Fujii v. State, 38 Cal. 2d 718 (1952) ↩
46. Civil Code § 1402 ↩
47. Civil Code § 1401 ↩
48. Statutes of California, 1923, ch. 18, amending Civil Code §§ 1401–1402 ↩
49. Civil Code § 161a, added by Statutes of California, 1927, ch. 265, § 1, p. 484 ↩
50. Civil Code § 1386, carrying forward the descents act of 1850, Statutes of California, 1850, p. 219 ↩
51. Civil Code §§ 1237–1269; by § 1265, where the homestead was selected by a married person from the community property it "vests in the survivor" on the death of either spouse; California Constitution of 1849, art. XI, § 15 ↩
52. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1464–1470 ↩
53. Code of Civil Procedure § 1469, applying where "the value of the whole estate does not exceed the sum of fifteen hundred dollars," the title then vesting absolutely in the widow or minor children ↩
54. Code of Civil Procedure § 1748: "If the minor is under the age of fourteen years, the court may nominate and appoint his guardian. If he is fourteen years of age, he may nominate his own guardian, who, if approved by the court, must be appointed accordingly" ↩
55. Civil Code § 1387: every child born outside marriage "in all cases is an heir of his mother," inheriting as if born in lawful wedlock ↩
56. Civil Code § 1387, making such a child an heir of "the person who, in writing, signed in the presence of a competent witness, acknowledges himself to be the father" ↩
57. Civil Code § 215, new section approved 30 March 1874, Amendments to the Codes, 1873–4, p. 195, in effect 1 July 1874: "A child born before wedlock becomes legitimate by the subsequent marriage of its parents"; applied in Encinas v. Lowthian Freight Lines, 69 Cal. App. 2d 156 (1945) ↩
58. Civil Code § 230: the father, "by publicly acknowledging it as his own, receiving it as such, with the consent of his wife, if he is married, into his family, and otherwise treating it as if it were a legitimate child," makes the child "for all purposes legitimate from the time of its birth" ↩
59. Estate of Lund, 26 Cal. 2d 472 (1945) ↩
60. "An Act concerning Wills," Statutes of California, 1850, p. 177, § 1, as cited in the code; carried into Civil Code § 1270, "Every person over the age of eighteen years, of sound mind, may, by last will, dispose of all his estate, real and personal" ↩
61. Civil Code § 1273, as amended 30 March 1874, Amendments to the Codes, 1873–4, p. 232, in effect 1 July 1874: "A married woman may dispose of all her separate estate by will, without the consent of her husband" ↩
62. Civil Code § 1276, requiring the will to be subscribed at the end by the testator, the subscription made in the presence of the attesting witnesses or acknowledged to them, and the testator to declare to them that the instrument is his will ↩
63. Civil Code § 1277: "An olographic will is one that is entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form … and need not be witnessed" ↩
64. "An Act concerning Wills," Statutes of California, 1850, ch. 72, §§ 7–9; carried into the codes as Civil Code §§ 1288–1296 ↩
65. Civil Code § 1282: beneficial devises, legacies, and gifts to a subscribing witness "are void, unless there are two other competent subscribing witnesses to the same" ↩
66. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1350, 1354, incompetency of executors and administrators, a minor being incompetent to serve ↩
67. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1352, 1370, as amended in 1891, Statutes of California, 1891, p. 11 ↩
68. Political Code § 3839, as amended 22 March 1880, Amendments to the Codes, 1880, p. 17: "Every male inhabitant of this State, over twenty-one and under sixty years of age, except paupers, insane persons, and Indians not taxed, must annually pay a poll tax of two dollars," rising to three dollars if paid after the first Monday in July; by § 3861 the proceeds went to the county treasurer "for the exclusive use of the State School Fund." Read here in The Political Code of the State of California, as Enacted in 1872, and Amended up to and including 1897, by James H. Deering (San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney Co., 1897); digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/politicalcodeofs00cali : accessed 23 July 2026) ↩
69. California Constitution of 1879, art. XIII, § 12 ↩
70. "Abolition of Poll Tax," initiative amendment to article XIII, section 12, of the Constitution, rewriting that section to read "No poll tax or head tax for any purpose whatsoever shall be levied or collected in the State of California." The petition was filed with the Secretary of State on 21 September 1912 and certified by Secretary of State Frank C. Jordan on 6 January 1914, with certified copies sent to the county clerks on 4 February 1914; the file wrapper is docketed "Poll Tax No. 10," matching the proposition number by which the measure is usually cited, and it was carried at the general election of November 1914. Digital images, UC Law SF Scholarship Repository, California Ballot Propositions and Initiatives, Initiative 1914-a-1 (https://repository.uclawsf.edu/ca_ballot_inits/7 : accessed 23 July 2026). "Poll Taxes," Assembly Constitutional Amendment 47, Proposition 13 on the ballot of 1924, proposed at the forty-fifth regular session and amending the same section to direct that the legislature "shall provide for the levy and collection of an annual educational poll tax of not less than five dollars on every male inhabitant of this state over twenty-one and under fifty years of age," excepting men holding an honorable discharge from the army, navy, or marine corps, those already paying five dollars or more a year in real or personal property tax, and paupers and persons declared insane, the tax to be paid into the state school fund. The measure prints the provision it replaced, which had required a tax of not less than four dollars on every alien male inhabitant between twenty-one and sixty, paid into the school fund of the county collecting it. Digital images, UC Law SF Scholarship Repository, California Ballot Propositions and Initiatives, Proposition 13 (1924) (https://repository.uclawsf.edu/ca_ballot_props/194 : accessed 23 July 2026). "Repeal of Educational Poll Tax," Assembly Constitutional Amendment 28, Proposition 16 on the ballot of 1946, repealing article XIII, section 12, outright; the argument for repeal printed in the voter pamphlet states that the legislature refrained from ever levying the tax the 1924 amendment called for, and that a four-dollar tax levied on aliens in 1921 was held unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court. Digital images, UC Law SF Scholarship Repository, California Ballot Propositions and Initiatives, Proposition 16 (1946) (https://repository.uclawsf.edu/ca_ballot_props/468 : accessed 23 July 2026) ↩
71. Political Code § 2652, levying on "each male person over twenty-one and under fifty-five years of age found in each road district" an annual road poll tax not exceeding three dollars, excepting men honorably discharged from the army or navy of the United States between 1 April 1861 and 1 September 1865 ↩
72. Statutes of California, 1850, ch. 97; the act was before the court in People ex rel. Attorney-General v. Naglee, 1 Cal. 232 (1850) ↩
73. Statutes of California, 1852, ch. 37 ↩
74. "An Act to protect Free White Labor against competition with Chinese Coolie Labor, and to discourage the Immigration of the Chinese into the State of California," Statutes of California, 1862, ch. 339, p. 462, approved 26 April 1862, laying on every person of the "Mongolian race" of eighteen or over "a monthly capitation tax of two dollars and fifty cents," called in section 4 the "Chinese police tax"; struck down in Lin Sing v. Washburn, 20 Cal. 534 (1862); digital images, California State Assembly, Office of the Chief Clerk (https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/archive/Statutes/1862/1862.PDF : accessed 23 July 2026) ↩
75. Code of Civil Procedure § 198, enacted 11 March 1872 and amended in 1875–6, p. 89, and 1880, p. 45: a person is competent to act as juror if he be a citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years, resident of the state one year and of the county ninety days, "in possession of his natural faculties, and of ordinary intelligence, and not decrepit," possessed of sufficient knowledge of English, and "assessed on the last assessment roll of the county … on property belonging to him"; disqualifications at § 199 ↩
76. California Constitution of 1849, art. II, § 1 ↩
77. Statutes of California, 1917, ch. 694, p. 1288, amending Code of Civil Procedure § 198 to admit women to jury service, effective 28 July 1917; digital images, California State Assembly, Office of the Chief Clerk (https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/archive/Statutes/1917/17Vol1_Chapters.pdf : accessed 23 July 2026) ↩
78. Penal Code § 26, excepting from criminal capacity "children under the age of fourteen, in the absence of clear proof that at the time of committing the act charged against them, they knew its wrongfulness." Read here in The Penal Code of the State of California, Adopted February 14, 1872, with Amendments up to and including Those of the Forty-first Session of the Legislature, 1915, ed. James H. Deering, legislative history by Charles H. Fairall (San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney Company, 1915); digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/penalcodeofstate00cali : accessed 23 July 2026) ↩
79. "An act defining and providing for the control, protection, and treatment of dependent and delinquent children," Statutes of California, 1903, ch. 43, p. 44, approved 26 February 1903, section 1 applying the act to "children under the age of sixteen years"; digital images, California State Assembly, Office of the Chief Clerk (https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/archive/Statutes/1903/1903.PDF : accessed 23 July 2026). It was replaced by "An act concerning dependent and delinquent minor children," Statutes of California, 1909, ch. 133, p. 213, approved 8 March 1909, whose section 1 provides that "This act shall be known as the 'Juvenile Court Law' and shall apply only to children under the age of eighteen years," raising the age from sixteen and defining a dependent child as any child under eighteen. The 1909 act also provided for commitment to the Whittier State School and the Preston State School of Industry, established probation committees and probation officers, and provided for detention homes. Digital images, California State Assembly, Office of the Chief Clerk (https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/archive/Statutes/1907_09/1909.pdf : accessed 23 July 2026). This act is sometimes cited as chapter 720 of the 1909 statutes; that chapter is the asexualization act of the same session and is a different law ↩
80. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1879–1880; by § 1880 those who cannot be witnesses include "children under ten years of age, who appear incapable of receiving just impressions of the facts respecting which they are examined, or of relating them truly" ↩
81. Code of Civil Procedure § 1881: "A husband cannot be examined for or against his wife without her consent; nor a wife for or against her husband without his consent" ↩
82. Act of 16 April 1850, Statutes of California, 1850, ch. 99, § 14; Civil Practice Act, Statutes of California, 1850, ch. 142, § 394 ↩
83. People v. Hall, 4 Cal. 399 (1854) ↩