In re Opinion of Justices

Decision Date31 October 1865
Citation37 Mo. 135
PartiesOPINION OF JUSTICES
CourtMissouri Supreme Court
QUESTIONS.

The Senate adopted a resolution propounding to the Supreme Court the following inquiries:

First--Has the General Assembly power to increase the capital stock of any incorporated company, now in operation, granted by this State heretofore?

Second--Can the General Assembly so alter, change, or mod ify, the act of any incorporated company doing business as to enlarge its powers, change its number of directors, or add new branches of business to its functions, provided such change, alteration, or modification, does not destroy the original object contemplated in the act of incorporation.

Third--Does sec. 6 of art. 8 apply to incorporated companies doing business in the State before July 4, 1865, under special and general laws both, or under general only?

OPINION.
IN THE MATTER OF QUESTIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SUBMITTED BY RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, DECEMBER 9, 1865.

With every disposition to comply with the wishes of the Senate, as expressed in their resolution directing the foregoing inquiries to be presented for our opinion, under the duty imposed upon us by the eleventh section of the sixth article of the Constitution of the State, we have addressed our minds to the consideration of the subject; but we have met with difficulties at the outset, arising out of the general and indefinite nature of the questions proposed, which have made it necessary for us to consider, and, in some degree, to define the extent of, the obligation imposed and the limits of the power conferred on the Judges of the Supreme Court by that provision of the Constitution. It is that “the Judges of the Supreme Court shall give their opinion upon important questions of Constitutional law, and upon solemn occasions, when required by the Governor, the Senate, or the House of Representatives; and all such opinions shall be published in connection with the reported decisions of said court.” (Const. the State of Mo., art. 6, sec. 11.)

The power conferred is limited to “important questions of Constitutional law, and upon solemn occasions,” and then only when required by the Governor, the Senate, or the House of Representatives. It is obvious that the Governor, Senate, or House of Representatives, must judge for themselves when they will require such opinions, and that the Judges must determine what are ““questions of Constitutional law,” and what are “solemn occasions” within the meaning of this section. And, first, it must be a question of law only, and it must arise upon the Constitution alone. It can scarcely be any other than some question of the proper construction and true meaning of some provision, clause, or words, contained in the Constitution; and it must be, in its own nature, a judicial question, the final determination of which, by the organic frame of our Government, properly belongs to the Judiciary. In calling for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State ex rel. Leake v. Harris
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 3, 1934
    ... ... The opinion in that case considers the question rather exhaustively, and we refer the reader to that case without again entering into an extended discussion of ... ...
  • State ex rel. Leake v. Harris
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 3, 1934
    ... ... to forthwith deliver the property in his custody to the ... parties from whom he received it. The opinion in that case ... considers the question rather exhaustively, and we refer the ... reader to that case without again entering into an extended ... ...
  • State ex rel. Shackleford v. McElhinney
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 28, 1912
    ... ... 1572; 6 Am. & Eng ... Ency. Law (2 Ed.), 1067-1068; 8 Cyc. 847, note 32; ... Id ... 799; Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S ... 346; Opinion in 55 Mo. 497; In re Railroad, 51 Mo ... 586; Opinion in 37 Mo. 135 (2) Giving advice is not a ... judicial act, and the pronouncement of a ... ...
  • In re School-Law Manual
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • March 12, 1886
    ...4 A. 87863 N.H. 574 ... In re SCHOOL-LAW MANUAL.1 ... Supreme Court of New Hampshire ... March 12, 1886 ...         Opinion of the court as to its duty under chapter 144, Laws 1885 ...         DOE, C. J. Chapter 144 of Laws of 1885, entitled "joint resolution ... When the opinions of the justices of this court are not legally required under the seventy-fourth article of the constitution, their duty, in regard to a question that can come before ... ...

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