[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