Gray v. Brittain

Decision Date19 January 1920
Docket Number117
Citation217 S.W. 772,141 Ark. 518
PartiesGRAY v. BRITTAIN
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Lee Chancery Court; A. L. Hutchins, Chancellor affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

J Walker Morrow and Henry G. Gatling, for appellants.

Section 1 of act 91, Acts 1915, is unconstitutional and void, as it violates section 23, article 5, of the Constitution. It is an attempt to extend the provisions of the act by referring to the numbers of the section and act without re-enacting them. 52 Ark. 290; 49 Id. 131; 29 Id. 252; 13 Mich. 481; 200 S.W. 275.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

The sole question involved on this case relates to the validity of the act of the General Assembly of 1917 (Acts 1917, vol 2, p. 1708), abolishing the Northeast Arkansas Cattle Tick Eradication District and attaching the territory in that district to the Northwest Arkansas Tick Eradication District. The Northeast Arkansas Cattle Tick Eradication District was created by an act of the General Assembly of 1911, approved May 30, 1911, Act No. 358, Session of 1911. The district, as originally created, did not include Lee County and certain other counties in that locality, but there was an amendment by act of March 3, 1915, enlarging the boundaries of the Northeast Arkansas Cattle Tick Eradication District so as to include other counties, Lee County being among the number. There is no assault on the validity of that statute, which it is conceded was repealed by the act of March 24, 1917, supra.

The Northwest Arkansas Tick Eradication District was created by the act approved March 1, 1915, and the boundaries are described in the statute. Acts 1915, p. 338. Sections 1 and 2 of the act of March 24, 1917, expressly repeal the act of 1911, supra, creating the Northeast Arkansas Cattle Tick Eradication District, and the act of 1915, supra, adding territory thereto. Section 3 reads as follows:

"That all territory now embraced in the Northeast Arkansas Cattle Tick Eradication District is hereby annexed to and made a part of the Northwest Arkansas Tick Eradication District."

The basis of the attack on the validity of the statute is that section 3 was an attempt to extend the provisions of a former statute by reference to title only in contravention of section 23 of article 5 of the Constitution, which reads as follows:

"No law shall be revived, amended, or the provisions thereof extended or conferred by reference to its title only; but so much thereof as is revived, amended, extended or conferred shall be re-enacted and published at length."

The contention is unsound for the reason that the statute adding the territory embraced in the abolished district to the other district mentioned does not constitute an extension of a law by reference to title only. New territory may be added to any kind of special district by appropriate description of the territory without re-enacting the provisions of the law applicable to the area...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Floyd v. Miller Lumber Company
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 25, 1923
    ... ... 6, § 13; 1 Wash ... Real Property, p. 59; 1 Tiffany, Real Property, p. 18; ... Goodwin, Law Real Property, p. 4; Gray, Rule Against ... Perpetuities, pp. 16-17, note ...          Chancellor ... Kent says: "In this country every real vestige of tenure ... ...
  • Arkansas Railroad Commission v. Stout Lumber Company
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • November 19, 1923
  • Brown v. Creekmore
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 19, 1920

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT