Assembly Bill 515 (West – 1933)
Chapter 744, Statutes of 1933
Some bill research does not include the Governor's file because at the time we researched the bill, the sitting Governor had not released his chaptered bill file. If the Governor's file is not included with this particular research, please contact our office (1-800-666-1917 or firstname.lastname@example.org) and we will be happy to provide this file at no charge if it is available.
Numerous sections relating to the Code of Civil Procedure were affected in 1933 following legislative passage of Assembly Bill 515. (See Exhibit #1e) Assembly Bill 515, carried by Assembly member Percy West, an attorney from Sacramento and chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, proposed to affect sections 372 through 1054a, relating to civil actions. (See Exhibits #3, #4, and #8, page 3) The bill was introduced as an enormous effort by the California Code Commission to revise and consolidate various aspects of the codes. (See generally, Exhibits #5a and #8) There were 11 bills introduced to effectuate the recommendations of the Commission. (See Exhibit #8, pages 3 and 4)
Assembly Bill 515 was heard in the Assembly and Senate Committees on Judiciary for consideration of the policy issues raised by the bill. (See Exhibit #2) The bill was amended on two occasions, once in each House, before being approved by the Legislature. (See Exhibits #1b, #1c, and #2) The measure was forwarded to Governor James Rolph, Jr., who approved the bill on June 5, 1933, and the Secretary of State recorded it on that date as Chapter 744 of the Statutes of that year. (See Exhibits #1e and #2)
A document entitled “Explanatory Statement of the Scope and Purposes of the 1933 Revision of the Code of Civil Procedure” from the Stanford University Press provided some general background regarding the 1933 revision to the Code of Civil Procedure:
Amendments involving a somewhat extensive revision of the Code of Civil Procedure were passed by the Legislature at the 1933 session. The revision involves a considerable amount of detail, and the first impression might be that it makes sweeping changes. As a matter of fact it does not. There are four major ideas involved in the revision.
(I) Removal of obsolete and conflicting provisions; (II) Some rearrangement of sections to bring together related matter; (III) Making the rules of practice and procedure (in general) uniform in the trial courts; (IV) Clarification of the existing provisions relating to jurisdiction and venue in the inferior courts.
(See Exhibit #9, page 3)