Henry v. State

Citation87 Miss. 1,39 So. 856
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Decision Date22 January 1906

Chief Justice WHITFIELD, after the appearance of the last preceding volume of these reports, called attention to the fact that his dissenting opinion in the above entitled case did not contain an addendum made by him some days after its delivery. This addendum should be read into his dissenting opinion, following the paragraph ending near the top of page 112, 87 Miss. Reports.

The addendum is as follows:

"Since writing the above, one of the learned judges of the supreme court of Florida called my attention to a case precisely in point and squarely upholding the power of the governor to institute this suit. The case is State ex rel. Francis P Fleming, Governor, v. John L. Crawford, Secretary of State, 28 Fla. 441 (10 So. 118; 14 L. R. A., 253). The facts are these: The governor appointed Robert H. M. Davidson United States senator to succeed Wilkinson Call, whose term expired on March 3, 1891. This appointment was made during a recess of the legislature, and was to last until the next meeting of the legislature. The governor issued the commission and signed it, and instructed and directed the secretary of state to seal it with the great seal of the state and to countersign it, as required by the constitution. The secretary of state refused to do either. Afterwards the governor instructed the attorney-general of the state to institute proceedings for a writ of mandamus to require the secretary of state to seal and countersign said commission. The attorney-general refused to institute the proceedings, and the governor then in his own name, in order to protect the public interest in the premises, etc., sued out a writ of mandamus. The secretary of state, in his return to the mandamus, denied the power of the governor to institute the suit, saying, in his second objection (p. 445 of 28 Fla., p. 119 of 10 South. Rep. ) "that the relator, the governor, has no such interest in or relation to the specific act sought to be enforced, upon the allegations of the writ, as authorizes or justifies him in instituting this proceeding." He also insists, third "that the state has no such interest in or relation to specific act sought to be enforced, upon the allegations of the writ, as authorizes the institution of the proceeding by the state, or on its behalf, or by or on relation of the governor of the state." The opinion of the court was delivered by Chief Justice RANEY, one of the greatest judges this country has ever produced. Responding to the contentions indicated, he said, for a unanimous court:

"It is also contended that neither the state nor the governor has any such interest in or relation to the specific act sought to be enforced as authorizes or justifies the institution of this suit. It is entirely clear, from the authorities (Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 ; United States v. Le Baron, 19 HOW 73 , and Advisory Opion, 12 Fla 686), and what has been announced in preceding portions of this opinion, that the executive or governmental duty of completing a commission is not consummated until it has been sealed and countersigned. Even admitting that, when a commission has been signed and delivered by the governor to the secretary of state, the appointee named therein, who may have previously taken the oath and given bond or done anything necessary to justify him in entering into the office upon the perfection of the commission, has such a private interest therein as gives him a status to require through the instrumentality of this writ the sealing and countersigning, or admitting that the executive power of revoking his action has passed as soon as a commission so signed has been delivered to the secretary, or even as soon as it has been signed with the intention of such delivery these positions and concessions, if proper, are in no way inconsistent with, nor do they effect, the interest of the public in the appointment and commissioning of public officers, nor do they remove the fact that the governor is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • City of Jackson v. Deposit Guaranty Bank & Trust Co
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 23, 1931
    ...... . . Chapter. 22 of the Laws of Mississippi of 1930 is in violation of. section 61 of the Constitution of the state of Mississippi. for the reason that section 1 of chapter 193 of the Laws of. 1920 was not brought forward but [160 Miss. 755] was amended. by ... by their own constitution or the Federal Constitution. . . 12 C. J. 746; Hinton v. Perry County, 84 Miss. 563;. State v. Henry, 87 Miss. 125; State v. Edwards, 93 Miss. 704; State University v. Waugh, 105 Miss. 623; Miller v. State, 130. Miss. 564; Knox v. Board of ......
  • State ex rel. Rice v. Stewart
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 2, 1939
    ...... Code of 1930; Gully v. Denkman Lbr. Co., 177 Miss. 164; Robertson v. Bank of Batesville, 116 Miss. 501;. Norcom v. Prentiss, 13 S. & M. 97; Adams v. Kuhn, 72 Miss. 276; Starling & Smith Co. v. Flash, 16 So. 875; Warren County v. Lanier, 87. Miss. 606; Henry v. State, 87 Miss. 1; White v. Lowry, 162 Miss. 751; Capital Stages v. State ex. rel. Hewitt, 157 Miss. 576; Canton v. Ross, 157 Miss. 788. . . The. final decree in the case of J. B. Gully, State Tax. Collector, v. Stewart et al., 178 Miss. 758, is not res. adjudicata of ......
  • State v. Woodruff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 30, 1933
    ...... the attorney general in the conduct of causes was not binding. on the state as sovereign. He is a constitutional officer,. with no duties specifically prescribed by the constitution,. but he is required, as parts of his duty, to defend suits. against the state. . . Henry. v. State, 87 Miss. 1; Sinclair v. State, 132 So. 581; Coster v. State, 76 So. 475; Pearl River. County Bank v. Town, 89 So. 9; Bank v. U. S. F. &. G., 91 So. 567; State v. Speakes, 109 So. 134;. State v. Henry, 87 Miss. 125, 144. . . Under. the proposition that the ......
  • State ex rel. Robbins v. Southern Natural Gas Corporation
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • November 4, 1935
    ......Rep. 301; Chicago,. St. L. & N. O. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 72 S.W. 1119;. Schmidt v. Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co., 24 S.W. 547; State v. Louisiana & M. R. Co., 114 S.W. 959;. State v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 10 S.W. 438;. Illinois Central R. v. Miller, 141 Miss. 223, 106. So. 641; Henry v. State, 37 So. 856, 87 Miss. 1;. State v. Union Tank Car Co., 119 So. 310, 151 Miss. 797; Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Miller, 122 So. 393, 154. Miss. 656. . . Position. of appellant is inconsistent and impossible. . . Argued. orally by J. H. Thompson, for ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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