Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

$ 36b. Other like provisions. There are other like provisions in the constitutions of some of the states, but discussions of them are not desirable here."

$ 37. Judicial knowledge and proof.— The public statutes are parts of the law of the land, whereof the courts take judi

350; Rader v. Union, 10 Vroom, 509; · S. v. Shadle, 41 Tex. 404; S. v. Mo (Vail v. Railway Co., 44 N. J. L. 237; Cracken, 42 Tex. 383; Giddings v. S. v. Newton, 45 N. J. L. 469.]

San Antonio, 47 Tex. 548; Peck v. New York.- Gloversville v. How- San Antonio, 51 Tex. 490; Albrecht ell, 7 Hun, 345; P. v. O'Brien, 38 N. Y. v. S., 8 Tex. Ap. 216, [34 Am. R. 737;] 193; P. v. Lawrence, 41 N. Y. 137; Cox v. S., 8 Tex. Ap. 254, [34 Am. R. Gaskin v. Meek, 12 N. Y. 186; P. v. 740.] Rochester, 50 N. Y. 525; P. v. Briggs, West Virginia.- Shields v. Ben. 50 N. Y. 553; Harris v. P., 59 N. Y. nett, 8 W. Va. 74. 599; P. v. Willsea, 60 N. Y. 507; P. v. Wisconsin.- Mills v. Charleton, 29 Banks, 67 N. Y. 568; P. v. Brinker. Wis. 400; Evans v. Sharp, 29 Wis. boff, 68 N. Y. 259; Kerrigan v. Force, 564, [9 Am. R. 578.] 68 N. Y. 381; Billings v. New York, (United States.— Jonesboro v. Rail. 69 N. Y. 413; Gloversville v. Howell, road Co., 110 U. S. 192; Otoe County 70 N. Y. 287; Sharp v. New York, 31 v. Baldwin, 111 U. S. 1.) Barb. 572; Gaskin v. Anderson, 55 1 For example, as to amendatory Barb. 259; Gaskin v. Meek, 8 Abb. Pr. statutes.— Armstrong v. Berreman, (N. S.) 312; Central Cross-town R. R. 13 Ind. 422; Greencastle Southern Co. v. Twenty-third Street R. R. Co., Turnp. v. S., 28 Ind. 382; Jones v. 54 How. Pr. 168; Hardenbergh v. Van Davis, 6 Neb. 33; Sovereign v. S., 7 Keuren, 4 Abb. N. Cas. 43; Neuen. Neb. 409; S. v. Parsons, 11 Vroom, dorff v. Duryea, 6 Daly, 276; (Re 123; S. v. Liedtke, 9 Neb. 490; PlumGas Light Co., 85 N. Y. 526; Harris mer v. P., 74 III. 361: Blakemore v. t. Supervisors, 33 Hun, 279.]

Dolan, 50 Ind. 194; S. v. Cain, 8 W. Pennsylvania.— Allegheny County Va. 720; Shields v. Bennett,' 8 W. Home's Case, 77 Pa. St. 77; State Va. 74. Line, etc. Railroad's Appeal, 77 Pa. As to special laws.- Devine v. St. 429; City Sewage Utilization Co. Cook, 84 II). 590; Brown v. S., 23 Md. 1. Davis, 8 Phila. 625; West Phila- 503; Hart v. P., 89 Ill. 407; Welker delphia Passenger R. R. Co. v. Union v. Potter, 18 Ohio St. 85; In re Clin. Passenger R. R. Co., 9 Phila. 495; ton Street, 2 Brews. 599; S. v. Cape Com. v. Dickinson, 9 Phila. 561; Girardeau, etc. R. R. Co., 48 Mo. 463; ( Washington v. McGeorge, 146 Pa. St. S. v. Thileneus, 48 Mo. 479. 248; Re Pottstown, 117 Pa. St. 538, 12 Uniform.— Brooks v. Hyde, 37 Cal. Atl. R. 573.)

366. South Carolina.- Morton v. Comp- Style ofenacting clause.-A clause troller-General, 4 S. C. 430; (S. v. of the constitution specifying the Hoover, 17 S. E. R. 752)

style of the enacting clause is held Tennessee.- Cannon v. Mathes, 8 by some courts to be only directory. Heisk. 504; [Luehrman v. Dist., 2 Cape Girardeau v. Riley, 52 Mo. 424, Lea, 425, Fed. R —; Gilson [14 Am. R. 427;] St. Louis v. Foster, County v. Pullman Car Co., 42 Fed. 52 Mo. 513; by others, mandatory. S. R 572.]

v. Rogers, 10 Nev. 250, [21 Am. R. Texas.-S. v. Deitz, 30 Tex. 511; 738.]

cial notice; and, to some extent, by-laws and classes of statutes not public are made such by legislative mandate. Private statutes always, under the common-law rules, require to be proved to the judge. With us, the ordinary prima facie proof of statutory laws is by the production, in court, of a copy purporting to be printed by public authority. Now,

Looking into records.- If a public statute is in question, and there is a suggestion that it is not correctly printed, the court will inform itself of the true reading by referring to the original in the office of the secretary of state. And the public record of it, kept by the proper officer, is by all opinions prima facie correct and the statute valid, and by a part of the opinions absolutely conclusive. Still the legislative journals are records; and some of our courts will look into them and into the engrossed bills, to learn whether an act received the constitutional majority, and otherwise conformed to requirements which were

[ocr errors]

1 Post, SS 395, 406; 1 Greenl. Ev., Ark. 317; Brodnax v. Groom, 64 N. C. SS 5, 6, 480; Lane v. Harris, 16 Ga. 244; P. v. Marlborough, 54 N. Y. 276; 217; Sims v. Marryat, 17 Q. B. 281, S. v. Liedtke, 9 Neb. 462; Usener v. S., 288, 292; Forman v. Dawes, Car. & 8 Tex. Ap. 177; Bender v. S., 53 Ind. M. 127; S. v. Bailey, 16 Ind. 46, [79254; Kilgore v. Magee, 85 Pa. St. 401; Am. D. 405;] Berliner v. Waterloo, Blessing v. Galveston, 42 Tex. 641; 14 Wis. 378; Clare v. S., 5 Iowa, 509. Miller v. S., 3 Ohio St. 475; S. v. Sep

2 Id.; Brett v. Beales, Moody & M. ton, 3 R. L 119; Erie & North East 416, 421, 425; Allegheny v. Nelson, 25 R. R. Co. v. Casey, 26 Pa. St. 287; McPa. St. 332.

Culloch v. S., 11 Ind. 424; P. v. Devlin, 31 Greenl. Ev., $ 480; Bound v. Wis- 33 N. Y. 269, (88 Am. D. 377; Standconsin Central R. R. Co., 45 Wis. 543; ard Union Cable Co. v. Atty. Gen., 46 Clark v. Janesville, 10 Wis. 136. See N. J. Eq. 270, 19 Atl. R. 733.] Needham v. Thresher, 49 Cal. 393. 6 S. v. Smalls, 11 S. C. 262; Moody

4 Clare v. S., 5 Iowa, 509; Evans v. v. S., 48 Ala. 115, 17 Am. R. 28.] Browne, 30 Ind. 514, [95 Am. D. 710;} ? Sedgwick on Statutes, 68, 69, re Paine v. Lake Erie, etc. R. R. Co., 31 ferring to Purdy v. P., 4 Hill (N. Y.), Ind. 283. And see ante, & 29; S. v. 384; De Bow v. P., 1 Denio, 9; ComLee, 37 Iowa, 402; Goldsmith v. Au- mercial Bank v. Sparrow, 2 Denio, gusta, etc. R. R. Co., 62 Ga. 468: (Re 97; Jones v. Hutchinson, 43 Ala. 721; Tipton, 28 Tex. Ap. 438, 8 L. R. A. Com. v. Jackson, 5 Bush, 680; [Rob326, 13 S. W. R. 610.]

ertson v. P., 20 Colo. 279, 28 S. W. R. 5 Annapolis v. Harwood, 32 Md. 471; 711. An enrolled bill signed by the S. v. Fagan, 22 La. An. 545; Larrison speaker of the house and by the v. Peoria, etc. R. R. Co., 77 Ill. 11; president of the senate in open sesLouisiana State Lottery Co. v. Rich- sion is an official attestation that oux, 23 La. An. 743, [8 Am. R. 602;] such bill has passed congress, and S. v. Swift, 10 Nev. 176, (21 Am. R. when, thus attested, it receives the 721;] 8. v. Rogers, 10 Nev. 250, [21 approval of the president, and is deAm. R. 738;] English v. Oliver, 28 posited in the public archives, its

[ocr errors]

vital, and not merely directory;' holding it void when thus affirmatively shown not to have been duly enacted.

8 37a. Estoppel - Admissions.-As private persons cannot make laws, they are not estopped? or otherwise bound by their admissions on the question whether or not a statute has been constitutionally passed.

VI. DEFECTS OTHER THAN CONSITUTIONAL.

$ 38. Motives — (By-law).- Evil motives and bad faith are never to be imputed by a court to the legislative body; so that no statute, public or private, is held void on these grounds. It is the same also of a city by-law. And,

Fraud. - In general, though not without some doubt as to purely private statutes, a legislative enactment will not, it seems, be held void for fraud practiced on the legislature in procuring its passage.? If this is so, we have doubtless here authentication is complete and un- St. Louis v. Shields, 62 Mo. 247; O'Han. impeachable. Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. lon v. Myers, 10 Rich. 128. 649.)

2 South Ottawa v. Perkins, 94 U. S. 1 Ramsey v. Heenan, 2 Minn. 330; 260; Boyd v. Alabama, 94 U. S. 645. Dew v. Canningham, 28 Ala. 466, [65 See Burrows v. Bashford, 22 Wis. 103; Am. D. 362;] 8. v. McBride, 4 Mo. Green v. Green, 14 La, An. 39. 303, (29 Am. D. 636;) South Ottawa 3 Happel v. Brethauer, 70 IIL 166, v. Perking, 94 U. S. 260; Worthen v. [22 Am. R. 70,] And see Jones v. Badgett

, 32 Ark. 496; Brady v. West, Perry, 10 Yerg. 59, [30 Am. D. 430.] 50 Miss

. 68 (overruling Green v. Wel- * Kountze v. Omaha, 5 Dill. 443; S. v. ler, 82 Miss 650); Legg v. Annapolis, Eau Claire, 40 Wis. 533; 8. v. Fagan, 42 Md. 203; Ryan v. Lynch, 68 111. 160; 22 La. An. 545; Wright v. Defrees, 8 Opinion of Justices, 52 N. H. 622; P. Ind. 298; P. v. Shepard, 36 N. Y. 285, v. Lowenthal, 93 IL 191; Perry v. 289. And see 8. v. King, 12 La. An. Selma, etc. R. R. Co.

, 58 Ala. 546; 593; [Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. Berry v. Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co., 41 27.] Md. 446, [20 Am. R. 69;] P. v. Hurl

Freeport v. Marks, 59 Pa. St. 253. but, 24 Mich. 44, 53, [9 Am. R. 103.)

6 2 Bl. Com. 346; Com. v. Breed, 4 And see Blake v. National Banks, 23 Pick. 460; Waterford, etc. Ry. Co. v. Wall

. 307, 321. For various questions Logan, 14 Q. B. 672, 630. relating to the manner of passing

? Broom, Leg. Max. (2d ed.) 42, reand approving bills, see Harpending ferring to Stead v. Cary, 1 C. B. 496, v: Haight, 39 Cal. 189, [2 Am. R. 432;) 516, 522. See Charles River Bridge v. S. v. Fagan, 22 La. An. 545; Solomon Warren Bridge, 7 Pick. 344; Jersey 0. Cartersville, 41 Ga. 157; Danielly v. City, etc. R. R. Co. v. Jersey City, etv. Cabaniss

, 52 Ga. 211; S. v. Buckley, R. R. Co., 6 C. E. Green, 61; [McLane v. 54 Ala 599; Hardee v. Gibbs, 50 Miss Paschal (Tex. Civ. Ap.), 28 S. W. R. 802; Division of Howard, 15 Kan. 194; 711.] Hull v. Miller, 4 Neb. 503. See also

the only exception to the rule that fraud vitiates the transactions into which it enters.

$ 39. Mistake.—It has been held that a statutory provision, inserted through pure inadvertence and mistake, will, on this fact clearly appearing, be disregarded." In Illinois, by mistake, the governor signed a bill, and his private secretary, finding it on his table signed, sent, in the usual routine of business, a message to the house announcing his approval. Within twenty minutes the governor, discovering the error, transmitted to the speaker a notice of the facts, and it was read aloud. He then returned the bill to the proper branch of the legislature with his signature erased and with his objections thereto, it never having been out of his possession. It was held not to become a law. The court considered that, as it had not passed out of his custody, the writing of his name did not constitute final action upon it. “While within such control and custody, the right to reconsider is a necessary incident to the power to

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

act.”

§ 39a. Acts not within legislative function.- We have seen that, with us, all power is in the people, who by written constitutions have given to the legislative bodies whatever they chose. But, in fact, our state legislatures, unlike congress, have thus been endowed with all legislative power, subject merely to specified exceptions and limitations. Still it results that the legislature cannot exercise a function not in its nature legislative; and, though a thing of this sort should be attempted in the form of a statute, it will be null. Now,

. § 10. Statutes against fundamental justice.- While it would not be a legislative function to change the orbit of the earth, and statutes attempting it would be void, is it otherwise where the legislative endeavor is to subvert the fundamental principles of right and justice? In point of abstract theory the two cases are identical, and acts of the latter sort that is, subversive of fundamental right and justice — are equally void with the former. Able judges in all ages have so declared.

1 Pond v. Maddox, 38 Cal. 572. Pa. St. 338, [98 Am. D. 272; Perkins

2 P. v. Hatch, 19 Ill. 283, 288, opinion v. Philadelphia, 156 Pa. St. 554, 27 by Caton, C. J.

Atl. R. 356.) 3 Ante, S 33.

6 Day v. Savadge, Hob. 85, 87; BonCom. v. Drewry, 15 Grat. 1; P. v.- ham's Case, 8 Co. 1140, 118a; CromFlagg, 46 N. Y. 401; Page v. Allen, 58 well's Case, 4 Co. 12a, 13a; London v.

But, while astronomers agree as to what is the orbit of the earth, the professors of moral science differ more or less concerning the fundamental principles of justice. Legislators are to judge of the right and expediency of the laws they frame, and plainly the courts have not in general any jurisdiction to reverse their decision. Therefore, as a practical question, rarely, if ever, will a considerate court so set its opinion against the legislative judgment on a point of morals as to hold a statute void on the ground now under consideration. But

Granting private property. It has been held, for example, that a state, like an individual, cannot convey what it does not own; so that, independently of constitutional inhibitions, an act is void which attempts to transfer to one private person the vested property of another. Again,

.: $ 41. Impossible.— If the legislature enacts an impossibility, no court will undertake to carry it into effect. Of this sort is a case of

Repugnance.— Provisions in irreconcilable repugnance cannot stand together. Either all or a part, as the particular instance may require, will be held void. Of a somewhat different nature is

Ambiguity.– Where the statutory terms are of such uncertain meaning, or so confused, that the courts cannot discern

Wood, 12 Mod. 669, 687, 688; Balti. Lower Chatham, 6 Vroom, 497;

P. v. more v. S., 15 Md. 376, 469; Ham v. Hayden, 50 N. Y. 525; P. v. Briggs, 50 McClaws, 1 Bay, 93; Bowman v. Mid. N. Y. 553; P. v. Flagg, 46 N. Y. 401; dleton, 1 Bay, 252; Morrison v. Barks. P. v. Mahaney, Mich. 481; Lee v. dale, Harper, 101.

Bude, etc. Ry. Co., Law R. 6 C. P. 576, 1 Davis v. S., 2 Tex. Ap. 425; Stapp 582. V. S., 3 Tex. Ap. 138, 140; Leonard v. 3 Hoye v. Swan, 5 Md. 237, 244; Wiseman, 31 Md. 201. And see Ex Bowman v. Middleton, 1 Bay, 252. parte Delaney, 43 Cal. 478; [Temmick And see Williams v. Register, Cooke 1. Owings, 70 Md. 246, 16 Atl. R. 719; (Tenn.), 214; Hoke v. Henderson, 4 Millay v. White, 86 Ky. 170, 5 S. W. R Dev. 1, [25 Am. D. 677;] Owens v. 429; Barker v. Torrey, 69 Tex. 7, 4 S. Rain, 5 Hayw. 106; Austin v. Trust

ees, 1 Yeates, 260; Ten Eyck v. Frost, Bishop, First Book, $$ 88-91, where 5 Cow. 346; Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 the authorities are more fully col. Pet. 627, 658. lected, and the question is discussed 4 Van Alstine v. P., 37 Mich. 523; more at large; Dorman v. S., 34 Ala. 8. v. Douglass, 5 Sneed, 608. 216, 235; P. u Gallagher, 4 Mich. 224, 5 Post, $ 65; U. S. v. Cantril, 4 253; Flint, etc. Plank-road v. Wood Cranch, 167; Gillespie v. S., 9 Ind. hull

, 25 Mich. 99, [12 Am. R. 233;] 380; Albertson v. S., 9 Neb. 429; SulJewell v. Weed, 18 Minn, 272; In re livan v. Adams, 3 Gray, 476. And

W. R. 646.]

« AnteriorContinuar »