*1 Judge, HOLMAN, County PABST et al. et al. v. Galveston. Texas. 27, 1930. March Bedford, Barker, and Wil- Owen D. Fine G. Galveston,
liams, Williams, all of Neethe & Watkins, Brantly Harris David Houston, appellees. GRAVES, J. county judge Appellants, mem- court Galveston bers the commissioners’ county, appeal in manda- from d mus, capaci- commanding in their meeting ties “at the next peti- for in said order an election as appellees, freeholding (of tax two county) paying throughout citizens of the County, as soon as requisite thirty-day given, for can notice purpose determining: (1) sheep permitted shall be County, whole, in said as a horses, mules, jacks, jennets and cat- in said tle shall be County, whole, hold required every step taking herein, as ordered law in said election.” Affirming officials, as' handling reason dis- of their bursing county’s funds, validity House Bill First Called Session the 41st (General Laws, Legislature, Session, p. 185, 71), and Senate First Called c. Laws, Ses- Third Called p. sion, statutes held inquiring into the the question court —without were valid subsisting legislative acts —to have peremptorily face the ordering of the election for designated purposes, second of these neither contend that act is sufficient for reasons: applicable to Gal- county, 6954, required veston signed by the Commissioners’ Court from eaeh indispensable in undisputedly prerequisite peti- ordered, election here so tions caption of House Bill No. 120 “does any purpose to amend disclose statutes so to omit the
E41 separately specifically- for Courts election for two and petitions Commissioners’ to the by signed purposes, averring least stated alleged facts at all the must be such elections twelve cinct pre- sought, (12) each entitle them to the relief from freeholders special exceptions and no against were directed in the only a this manner of statement — in on file found The general demurrer; given when the benefit purport- of State of the office every intendment, pleading is reasonable con- ing cannot susceptible interpretation at least of the that duly law, sidered same is speci- an for meant election each of the re- manner not authenticated purposes; appellants fied particular more desired by quired the authentica- for sought, information as what finally passed bills by specially de- signature of the in does not bear that it murring. Representatives.” House of holding, appellants’ This in conces- view presentments are to the effect Additional phase case, sion on that eliminates fur- granting the writ so the trial court ther consideration of writ was pass upon refusing (1) further erred: authorized as to the election to determine sufficiency legal acts of the cited per- respondents have no “that large obviously mitted to run at it was. pro- constitutionality — the law viding of said for That it was not authorized means election, of said but it bringing an about other election spondents and hold to order affecting horses, mules, etc.— —that petitions,” (2) requested in order- seems to sons so rea us obvious for all the single submission approval; with response specified propositions both dicated, all facts the other that raise this only, petition appellees’ parties being undisputed, issue between the affirmatively appears, when it appellees claim make shown, of one of submission trary insisting conclusion—aside from their propositions law. authorized appellants could not that House the valid n purpose— ity first-mentioned thereof —is sheep, goats— pertaining turn, Senate Bill No. each its eliminated au- requirement writ was not that the concede of R. S. statutes, art. 6930 thorized under other et lees 6954 islature, Laws of 41st appel- seq., Regular Session, p. 9, if stated good. only prayed 6954]): ap be not for one election Ann. Civ. “Where is an §St. there plication undisputed, for an election entire procedural being to include an join shall not twelve appellees legal be less than as to issue justice precinct reversal, freeholders from assigned grounds each of these signers petition insisting (1) both Bill No. 120 and election.” In purported thereof both amend- Bill No. 22 were such valid cap effect, (Vernon’s acts had that but the ments of article 6954) tion of No. ton 120 fails either include Galves Civ. St. as eliminated county therein, give signed or to otherwise that the in this instance justice notice of an intention twelve to eliminate the from each precinct requirement, (2) appel- from freeholders each in Galveston personal property while No. does not bear the lants — speaker, void; rights the caption both therefore ex- not in stake —were purely of No. 120 is as follows: min- cuse their failure to duty enjoined by Chapter isterial against statutes invoked B. No. 120. “H. responding require- that such amending 6954, Chapter “An Act Article invalid, ments pleadings properly their own were Revised Civil of of Title Texas, 1925, Statutes clearly sufficient, Chapter as amended in praying construed as for one Regular Session the Acts of the 40th purposes. tion for two distinct Texas, Legislature of as amended agree Chapter Regular appellants, 5 of Session We with the Acts save view that with refer- mandamus should preventing objectives, denied effect as to the mode of horses and because ence appellees prayed running for one which certain other election at animals proposi named there should counties include be submitted the two tions, Briscoe, Archer, affirmatively the counties of shown Article Gray, Chambers, Bend, by law; Brooks, Goliad, to be unauthorized record Fort the state of the Davis, may Hogg, Leon, construction, conclude, Jeff Jim Live Hutchinson. Oak, Montgomery, Polk, Panola, Runnels, Potter, Marion, properly given petition; Shackelford, Jacinto, pray election, nor San for one rather an Wyo. 542, (N. Shelby, Terrell, Throckmorton, Uvalde, 19 868; 39 L. R. A. Walk- Scarbrough Zavala, Robinson, er, Webb, Waller, Zapata, 81 N. C. Glenn, emergency.” declaring Nev. Mickey, Am. 102 N. recite that briefs both sides true the Lynch Hutchinson, Ill. counties Galveston is included *3 904; 193, 370, v. N. E. Cas. State Ann. 76 4 undisputed- caption, but such named in this ly is 81, Lynch, Iowa, 148, A. L. R. 169 151 N. W. fact, is here not what the 1915D, 119. appears verbiage precise alike from the the as authorities, Under the cited copies and of itself of bill the clearly quirements of our Constitution enacting it, printed which the session acts of only separate purposes—(cid:127) not and distinct the and 14 to Nos. 11 as are attached exhibits merely journal entry being as to the agree- written the statement of authenticate, supply, signature of not to the .parties are correct. of that both ment the other, presiding upon bill, the officer the the particular ob- here this state sign is, providing the one that he shall regard taining, even not court does this it, identifying as^ specified the means as the debatable the the as measure one before the the act, have holds of it of but title relates, journal entry time which the of Su- our decision been foreclosed preme 103, -the entry and the ing as hav- one referred to Carpenter, Tex. 109 in Ward v. signed—but mutually been so also are 521; see, also, Leon- Arnold v. 200 W. S. equally'mandatory; logic such is the those of 799; ard, 535, v Bitter S. W. 114 Tex. 273 holdings, them, as we read and it is conse- S.W.(2d) App.) County (Tex. 11 Bexar Com. quence so here declared. 163. appellants, constituting That body governing of hold did in all coun the soundness ty’s public business, having although purported No. 22 is Senate varied signature carrying personal pecuniary affected, of no interest not valid because Representatives, despite Speaker calling of the fact that of the House the election act the we are also clear; it, photostatic may a constituted ministerial itself, duty, beyond proper copy pale the or bill under certificate not State, privilege challenging 9No. as Exhibit the constitutional attached agree validity facts, under like of two acts of to the statement correct, sought parties it is it was to con ment of the here virtue alone pro on bill trol their official file action so drastic a discloses that depository—does ceeding mandamus, not, official’s office—its is we Speaker; think, signature doubted, is notwithstanding it ex bear appears istence of such as State v. Board true also exhibit cases pKotostatic copy Equalization, 592, 681, of an a 84 of facts Fla. 94 So. 30 A. L. statement reciting, excerpt 362; Heard, 1679, Journal R. the House State v. La. 18 47 Ann. presence 746, 512; signed, Threadgill L. of the So. -in the 47 R. A. “The v. Cross, 403, 109 558, 138 Rep. giving and their 26 Okl. House after notice thereof Am. St. seemingly severally, 964, holding otherwise; captions the follow been read caption trary view, upon appears regard ing bills,” we as much the which what reason, applied corresponding Bill No. 22 better has in these deci of a been Huntington 97, sions; Worthen, caption qpon now see- v. S. 7 120 U. 469, 467, 588; cretary here under dis S. 30 L. Ed. Ct. Van Horn v. of state’s office State, 62, 365; cussion,. showing it N. W. v. Hindman 46 64 but this affirmative 17, 609; Speaker Boyd, 42 Wash. 84 P. State v. Cand not bear the the. notwithstanding Utah, land, (N. 406, 285, recital such 104 24 R. A. nullifies the bill 36 L. 1260, Journal, 140 Am. 834. Constitu in tion mandatorily requires expressly holdings of these last-cited The rationale provision: in this is an unconstitutional act shall, all, presiding no is no officer of each islature law courts have “The house compel any power publie presence over one—much a house less in the presides, joint obey it; by body sign or officer—to all bills and resolutions the author ities, compel publie passed by writ mandamus to a their titles duty publicly signing; and read officer or some act or have been signing the will issue unless and until entered on it is shown the fact of journals.” performance 3, clearly im is ^ Taylor, posed it, 667, him or S. W. and that a cor v. Tex. Williams 156; Wyo. 433; legal right Cahill, performed to have relative is 75 P. Arberry 233; applicant writ; State, App. for the Tex. S. W. Hunt Ex vested Beavers, 791; parte Tipton, App. 438, 467, Am. Dec. John Tex. 13 S. W. v. 6 Tex. George (Tex. App.) Company R. A. Bolin 8 L. son Elliott 168 S. Irrigation Valley Company, Taylor, Tex. North 19 S. W. Platte Williams v. Goodwin, presentment, think, Ashford v. 103 Tex. The other merit; 1913A, S. W. Cas. are not Senate Bill therefore, us, Obviously, seems to agreement certified under cor what determine court in this instance had to rectly reflected sec the measure file actually statutory on the law was bill, retary office, of state’s subject possibly determine before it could having upon, never acted duty, as was such court, raised claimed, imposed. especially language since the certificate unnecessary; Further discussion is deemed thus vouch Exhibit No. for —as shown require that so much these conclusions foregoing 9 to the statement of facts —is: “the as ordered the trial court’s is a true and correct purpose of determin- tion to be ing, “(1) passed the Third Galled Session *4 shall Whether Legislature.” 41st county in and that permitted to rehearing The motion for will be overruled. affirmed, much whole” Overruled. to be held the election 'determining, “(2) horses, mules, jacks, jennets, and cattle county whole,” etc., be reversed as a cause ed in respect render- of action INDUSTRIAL CO. v. TOMPKINS et al. or- be so It will favor of dered. part. Affirmed in of Texas. Amarillo. phrt. Reversed rendered April 2, 1930. 6954]) have the bill that opinion been ate and that 22 ror: cluded [Gen. & certified to sion urged that Galveston Sess. Sess. [1929] Two recitations was (Gen. Bill No. brought p. 185, p. 240, p. 9, itself —as on file in the office of Sp. Laws, that Galveston Laws 41st On Motion for shown to presented within R. S. article 6954 60, passed c. 8 finally passed. caption 71]; (2) secretary [Vernon’s as of fact Leg. Leg. (1929) Called a correct that Senate Rehearing. Ann. Civ. St. at the Speaker. hiving [1929] (Gen. Sp. of state —did Ann. Civ. St. regular induced & copy of the 3rd 1st Bill No. No. already Called Laws Sen- ses- er- in- § verbatim before followed While briefs, ap- does statements mutual put
pear un- previ- operation of article 6954 der the regular Bill 120 session ous the'ensuing called session was enacted at the Legislature, hence it was unneces- same again sary it to have been named in act; caption of the latter but that considerations which' our rested, invalid conclusion that it was former the caption presaged that its main one intention amend the ho way opera- include within its than to other tion newly counties; designated several view, error will be unconvinced adhered to.