Lawyers' Reports Annotated Volume 51 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1905 Excerpt: ...and also by the Supreme Court of the United States, that where a state Constitution prescribes such formalities in the enactment of laws as require a record of the yeas and nays on the legislative journals, these journals are conclusive as against not only a printed statute, published by authority of law, but also against a duly enrolled act. The following is a list of the authorities, in number ninety-three, sustaining this view either directly or by very close analogy. It is believed that no Federal or state authority can be found in conflict with them. Decisions can be found, as, for instance. Carr v. Coke, supra, to the effect that, where the Constitution contains no provision requiring entries on the journal of particular matters, --such, for example, as calls of the yeas and nays on a measure in question.--the enrolled act cannot, in such case, be impeached by the journals. That, however, is a very different proposition from the one involved here, and the distinction Is adverted to in Field v. Clark. 148 U. 8., on page 671, 86 L. ed. 303. The authorities are as follows: Alabama: Moody v. Stale, 48 Ala. 115, 17 Am. Rep. 28; State v. Buckley, 54 Ala. 599; Perry County v. Selma, M. & M. R. Co. 58 Ala. 546; Walker v. Griffith, 60 Ala. 361; Mooq v. Randolph Ala.697; Hall v. Steele fiZ Ala.562. Arkansas: Burr v. Host, 19 Ark. 250; Vinsanl v. Knox, 27 Ark. 266; Worthen v. Budget/, 32 Ark 496; Smithee v. Gnrth, 33 Ark. 17; Chicot County v Daries, 40 Ark. 200; Glideveil v. Martin. 51 Ark. 559. California: Railroad Tax Cnse, 8 Sawy. 238, 13 Fed. Rep 722: Weill v. Kenfield, 54 Cal. Ill; Oakfield Fating Co. v. Hilton, 69 Cal. 479. Colorado: Re Roberts 5 Colo. 525; Hughes v. Felton. 11 Colo. 489; Robertson v. People, 20 Colo. 279. Florida: Mathis v. State, 31 F..