Rutledge v. Atkinson, 8588.
Decision Date | 13 January 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 8588.,8588. |
Parties | RUTLEDGE et al. v. ATKINSON, County Judge, et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Irion County; John F. Sutton, Judge.
Suit by Cul Rutledge and others against R. J. Atkinson, County Judge, and others. From a judgment in favor of the defendants, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
W. A. Wright, of San Angelo, for appellants.
Upton & Upton and Travis E. Baker, all of San Angelo, for appellees.
This case involves, as its controlling question, the validity of that portion of chapter 128, p. 328, Gen. Laws Reg.Sess. 43d Leg., 1933 (Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 1601), which increased from five to ten years the time in which an election for removing a county seat could not be held after a prior election for that purpose. The suit was by taxpaying citizens of Irion county to enjoin the county judge and other officials from moving the county seat from Sherwood to Mertzon, in accordance with an election held on September 5, 1936; a previous valid election retaining the county seat at Sherwood having been held April 2, 1927; and to enjoin the negotiation of bonds voted to build a courthouse at Mertzon. Both Sherwood and Mertzon are less than five miles from a railroad, and therefore the exceptions relating to towns not so situated are not involved. Concededly, the election was valid and carried in favor of the removal by the requisite vote. The trial court held the 1933 act invalid in the particular named, because that subject was not embraced in the title of the act as required by article 3, § 35, Texas Constitution.
Article 1601, R.C.S.1925, and the 1927 amendment thereof (chapter 185, p. 264, Gen. Laws 40th Leg.Reg.Sess.), fixed at five years the time within which such election could not be held after a prior election. The title to the 1933 act reads: "An Act to amend Article 1601, Chapter 5, Title 33, of the Revised Civil Statutes, of the State of Texas, 1925, as amended by Acts 1927, 40th Legislature, Regular Session, Page 264, Chapter 185, so as to require all indebtedness against a courthouse or courthouses shall be paid in full before the county seat of any county can be moved from its present location; repealing all laws or parts of laws in conflict herewith; declaring a rule of construction, and declaring an emergency."
The body of the act, in addition to the unpaid courthouse indebtedness, repealing construction, and emergency provisions, increased to ten years the time within which a subsequent election might not be held.
The question thus presented has been specifically adjudicated in favor of the trial court's holding in Ward Cattle & Pasture Co. v. Carpenter, 109 Tex. 103, 200 S.W. 521, Arnold v. Leonard, 114 Tex. 535, 273 S.W. 799, 803, and, in principle at least, in a number of other cases which will be found cited in 39 Tex.Jur. pp. 102-105, § 48. The rule announced in these cases is to the effect that, although an act may be amended in any germane particular by an amendatory act, the title of which merely refers to the act or article sought to be amended, without specifying in what the amendment consists, yet when such title states the particular respect in which the amendment consists, any amendment not germane to that specified is invalid as being repugnant to the invoked constitutional provision.
In the Carpenter Case the act involved sought to amend the stock law, "so as to include" (so runs the title) certain named counties. The body of the act omitted Matagorda county, theretofore included. The act was held invalid in this particular. We quote from the opinion (Chief Justice Phillips writing):
In Arnold v. Leonard the involved titles provided for amendment of designated statutes (the married women's property laws) "by providing" certain specified things. The reasoning in the Carpenter Case was approved in the following quotation (Associate Justice Greenwood writing): ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gulf Ins. Co. v. James
...114 Tex. 535, 273 S.W. 799; Texas-Louisiana Power Co. v. City of Farmersville, Tex.Civ. App., 67 S.W.2d 235; Rutledge v. Atkinson, County Judge, Tex.Civ.App., 101 S.W.2d 376; Sutherland v. Board of Trustees of Bishop Ind. Sch. Dist., Tex.Civ.App., 261 S.W. 489 writ refused; Eck v. Eck, Tex.......
-
White v. State
...act to the making of the change designated, and precludes any additional, contrary or different amendment. In Rutledge v. Atkinson, Tex.Civ.App., 101 S.W.2d 376, the Austin Court of Civil Appeals 'The rule announced in these cases 6 is to the effect that, although an act may be amended in a......
-
State v. Emerson
...Severn, 164 Pa. 462, 30 A. 395; Ward Cattle & Pasture Co. v. Carpenter, Tex. Civ.App., 168 S.W. 408; Rutledge v. Atkinson, Tex.Civ.App., 101 S.W.2d 376; State v. Schultz etc. Co., 83 Md. 58, 34 A. 243; People v. Howe, 177 N.Y. 499, 69 N.E. 1114, 66 L.R.A. 664; State ex rel. Landis v. Ault, ......
-
Landrum v. Centennial Rural High School Dist. No. 2, 8953.
...designated in its title, and precludes any additional, contrary, or different amendment than that stated in the title. Rutledge v. Atkinson, Tex.Civ.App., 101 S.W.2d 376; Walker v. State, 134 Tex. Cr.R. 500, 116 S.W.2d 1076; Sutherland v. Board of Trustees, Tex.Civ.App., 261 S.W. Appellants......