Huff v. Udey
| Decision Date | 04 April 1927 |
| Docket Number | 331 |
| Citation | 292 S.W. 693,173 Ark. 464 |
| Parties | HUFF v. UDEY |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; John E. Martineau, Chancellor affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
Mehaffy & Mehaffy, for appellant.
Rose Hemingway, Cantrell & Loughborough, for appellee.
Appellant a citizen of Pulaski Restricted District No. 3, in Pulaski County, Arkansas, brought suit in the chancery court of said county against appellee, impounder of said district, to enjoin him from impounding the stock of appellant and other taxpayers, upon the alleged ground that act 639 of the Acts of the General Assembly of 1923, under which the district was created, is void. The district was established by order of the county court of Pulaski County on November 20, 1925 under § 4 of said act, and embraced certain territory in Pulaski County south of the Arkansas River.
The validity of the act is first attacked because the journals of the Legislature failed to show that the act was read at length on three different days in each House, or that the rules were suspended so that it might be read a second or third time on the same day, as required by § 22, article 5, of the Constitution. The Constitution does not require that the journal show that the act was read at all, provided the journal recites the final passage of the act in legal form by a yea and nay vote, for the court will presume that the act was read in conformity to the Constitution. Glidewell v. Martin, 51 Ark. 559, 11 S.W. 882; Waterman v. Hawkins, 75 Ark. 120, 86, 86 S.W. 844 S.W. 844; Pelt v. Payne, 90 Ark. 600, 30 S.W. 426; Helena Water Co. v. Helena, 140 Ark. 597, 216 S.W. 26; Rice v. Road Imp. Dist., 142 Ark. 454, 221 S.W. 179; Ewing v. McGehee, 169 Ark. 448, 275 S.W. 766. This presumption is conclusive, unless the journal entries themselves show to the contrary. The presumption cannot be overcome by oral testimony, as has been attempted in this case. State v. Crowe, 130 Ark. 272, 197 S.W. 4, L. R. A. 1918A, 567 Ann. Cas. 1918D, 460; Harrington v. White, 131 Ark. 291, 199 S.W. 92; Perry v. State, 139 Ark. 227, 214 S.W. 2; Booe v. Sims, 139 Ark. 595, 215 S.W. 659; Road Imp. Dist. No. 16 v. Sale, 154 Ark. 551, 243 S.W. 825; Ruddell v. Gray, 171 Ark. 547, 285 S.W. 2.
The records of both houses not only show that the bill was read a third time and passed by a majority vote on a call of the yeas and nays, but also reflects that the act was read the first time on a different day, and on the day of the first reading the rules were suspended and the act was read a second time. There is nothing in the record reflecting that it was not read at length. The record does not state that it was read by title only.
The validity of the act is next assailed on the ground that the title was not as broad as the subject- matter of the act. The title or caption of the act is as follows:
"An act to prohibit the running at large of live stock in certain portions of Pulaski County, north of the Arkansas River."
Section one of said act not only prohibits running at large of cattle, horses, hogs, sheep or goats in that portion of Pulaski County, Arkansas, lying north of the Arkansas River and east of the main line of the Missouri Pacific Railway, but it also prohibits them from running at large in any stock-restricted district in Pulaski County created by order of the county court of Pulaski County, as provided for in § 4 of said act. Section 4 of said act is as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walther v. McDonald
...subject matter, the title cannot be considered in determining the legislative intention if the act itself in unambiguous. Huff v. Udey, 173 Ark. 464, 292 S.W. 693; Matthews v. Byrd, 187 Ark. 458, 60 S.W.2d 909. Professor Anderson (2 Ark.L.Rev. 382, 385) makes it very clear that a title may ......
-
Cook v. Bevill
...880, 281 S.W. 678; City of Conway v. Summers, 176 Ark. 796, 4 S.W.2d 19; Graves v. Burns, 194 Ark. 177, 106 S.W.2d 602. See also Huff v. Eudy, 173 Ark. 464, 292. S.W. 693; Matthews v. Byrd, 187 Ark. 458, 60 S.W.2d 909; 2 A.L.R. 385; Special School District No. 33 v. Howard, supra; Drainage ......
-
Warfield v. Chotard, 4-6499.
...124 Ark. 20, 186 S.W. 612; Oliver v. So. Trust Co., 138 Ark. 381, 212 S.W. 77; Nixon v. Allen, 150 Ark. 244, 234 S.W. 45; Huff v. Udey, 173 Ark. 464, 292 S.W. 693; Conway v. Summers, 176 Ark. 796, 4 S.W.2d It seems clear to us from the title of the act that there was no intention to amend o......
-
Jernigan v. Loid Rainwater Co., 4-4966.
...it is no part of the act, and is not controlling. Special School District No. 33 v. Howard, 124 Ark. 475, 187 S.W. 444; Huff v. Udey, 173 Ark. 464, 292 S.W. 693; Conway v. Summers, 176 Ark. 796, 4 S.W.2d 19. The same rule is applicable to a preamble. Oliver v. Southern Trust Company, 138 Ar......