Lambert v. Smith
| Decision Date | 30 March 1900 |
| Citation | 98 Va. 268,38 S.E. 938 |
| Parties | LAMBERT . v. SMITH. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—STATUTES—ENACTMENT.
Const, art. 10, § 11, provides that on passage of an act appropriating money the vote shall be determined by the ayes and noes, and the names of the persons voting shall be entered on the journals of the respective houses. Act March 5, 1900, providing for the appointment of commissioners of valuation, carried with it an appropriation of public money. The record showed that the vote was not taken as provided for in said section. Held that, inasmuch as so much of the act as appropriated money could not be separated from the balance of the act no part of the act was valid.
Application of W. P. Lambert for writ of habeas corpus against one Smith. Petitioner discharged.
Francis L. Smith, A. W. Armstrong, Causey, Jones & Woodward, Daniel Harmon, White, Tunstall & Thorn, Charles S. Stringfellow, Munford & Anderson, Blackford, Horsley & Blackford, Daniel & Harper, and Christian & Christian, for petitioner.
A. J. Montague, Atty. Gen., Hill Carter, R. Randolph Hicks, and George Pilcher, for respondent.
"This day came again the parties by counsel, and the court, being of opinion that the act of the general assembly entitled 'An act to provide for the appointment of commissioners of valuation, and defining their duties, ' approved March 5, 1900, carries with it an appropriation of public money, and that section 11, art. 10, of the constitution of the state provides that upon the passage of every such act 'the vote shall be determined by ayes and noes, and the names of the persons voting for and against the same shall be entered on the journals of the respective houses, and a majority of all the members elected to each house shall be necessary to give it the force of a law, ' and it appearing from the record that the vote was not taken and entered as provided by said section; and the court being of opinion that it cannot separate so much of the act as appropriates money, and hold it to be bad, while maintaining the validity of the rest of the law, but that, not having been passed as required by section 11, art, 10, above quoted, no part of the act has the force of a law; and it appearing to the court that the act aforesaid is null and void by reason of its repugnance to the constitution of this state: Therefore it Is considered by the court that the said W. F. Lambert is illegally detained in custody, and it is ordered that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hannabass v. Md. Cas. Co
...so that each can stand alone as the will of the legislature, the whole must fall." (Citing authorities.) Other cases are Lambert v. Smith, 98 Va. 268, 38 S.E. 938; Danville v. Hatcher, 101 Va. 523, 44 S.E. 723; Miller v. Town of Pulaski, 109 Va. 137, 63 S.E. 880, 22. L, R.A., N.S., 552; Tow......
-
Hannabass v. Maryland Cas. Co.
...so that each can stand alone as the will of the legislature, the whole must fall." (Citing authorities.) Other cases are Lambert Smith, 98 Va. 268, 38 S.E. 938; Danville Hatcher, 101 Va. 523, 44 S.E. 723; Miller Town of Pulaski, 109 Va. 137, 63 S.E. 880, 22 L.R.A.(N.S.) 552; Town of Narrows......
-
Woolfolk v. Driver Et At
...that each can stand alone as the will of the legislature, the whole must fall." (Citing authorities.) " 'Other cases are Lambert v. Smith, 98 Va. 268, [269], 38 S.E. 938; Danville v. Hatcher, 101 Va. 523, 44 S.E. 723; Miller v. Town of Pulaski, 109 Va. 137, 63 S.E. 8S0, 22 L.R.A., N.S, 552;......
-
Woolfolk v. Driver
...so that each can stand alone, as the will of the legislature the whole must fall." (Citing authorities). "`Other cases are Lambert Smith, 98 Va. 268, 269, 38 S.E. 938; Danville Hatcher, 101 Va. 523, 44 S.E. 723; Miller Pulaski, 109 Va. 137, 63 S.E. 880, 22 L.R.A.(N.S.) 552; Narrows Board of......