[1] As employed in sections 51 and 52 of the Civil Code, the term "citizen" is not used in a restricted sense -- that is, a citizen of a state or a citizen of the United States -- but in the broad and unrestricted sense, implying that one is a resident of the state and as such entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of its courts to protect a right guaranteed to all, without reference to race or color, who resides within its jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would render the statute obnoxious to the fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution, under which a state may not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In our opinion, it was not the intent of the legislature to restrict the operation of the statute to those only who were subjects of the United States government and exclude therefrom unnaturalized residents of foreign birth, whether white or black. [2] The evidence shows that the plaintiff was a resident of the state, which in fact entitled him to maintain the action. Whether or not he was a citizen of the United States, with all the rights implied by such term, is immaterial. [Prowd v. Gore, 57 Cal.App 458, 459-461 (1922)] # # #
Return to Table of Contents for
Prowd v. Gore