# Miller v. Pillsbury

> California Supreme Court · November 20, 1912 · 164 Cal. 199

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3299892

## Case

- **Full name:** FRED MILLER, Petitioner, v. A. J. PILLSBURY Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 20, 1912
- **Citations:** 164 Cal. 199; 128 P. 327; 1912 Cal. LEXIS 331
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Henshaw
- **Judges:** Henshaw, Melvin
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3299892

## Opinion text

HENSHAW, J., concurring.
I concur. It is apparent that this statute raises a doubt whether or not it was contemplated by its framers that the state should be subject to its provisions. Under fundamental and familiar principles of construction of statutes such as this the existence of the doubt is the solution of the inquiry. Wherever such a doubt
*205
does exist the construction favors the sovereign. The sovereign is not brought within the scope of its own laws unless the intent that this should be done is made plainly to appear. This general rule of construction favoring the sovereign in case of doubt is applied to grants by the state, to statutes of limitation, to rights of action, and, indeed, to all laws and contracts concerning which it may be thought that the state is included or is a party. If, in truth, the state desires to subject itself to the law here in question it could and should do so in language of clear and unmistakable import.
Sloss, J., and Shaw., J., concurred.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3299892. Public record. Not legal advice.