Smith v. State, 3 Div. 689.
| Decision Date | 15 April 1931 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 689. |
| Citation | 223 Ala. 11,136 So. 265 |
| Parties | SMITH v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Certified Question from Court of Appeals.
J. R Smith was convicted of giving false weights and measures in the sale of gasoline, and he appealed to the Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals, under Code 1923, § 7322, certifies to the Supreme Court, the question of the validity of the Agricultural Code of 1927.
Question answered.
See also, Smith v. State (Ala. App.) 136 So. 266; (Ala Sup.) 136 So. 270.
Presiding Judge.
Wm. H Samford, James Rice, Judges.
Hill, Hill, Whiting, Thomas & Rives, of Montgomery, for appellant.
Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Jas. L. Screws, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Though the inquiry here presented was not directly involved in Gibson v. State, 214 Ala. 38, 106 So. 231, yet the discussion of the questions there considered, in connection with the legislative enactments relating to the establishment of the "Agricultural Code of Alabama," which for ready reference appear in the preface thereto (Gen. Acts 1927, p. 60; Gen. Acts 1927, p. 324), serve to demonstrate the conclusion of the court that said Code was adopted in a manner therein indicated as meeting the approval of the court, and is not offensive to section 45 of our Constitution.
Indeed counsel attacking the validity of the Code do not insist that its adoption is violative of section 45 of the Constitution because not a revision of all the laws as contemplated by section 85 of the Constitution, upon which question there is a division of opinion. See dissenting views to State v. Town of Springville, 220 Ala. 286, 125 So. 387. Though without particular bearing upon the question, it is not improper to note cases here considered, wherein the validity of the Agricultural Code seemed to have been assumed.
Commissioners' Court v. State, 218 Ala. 512, 119 So. 238; Cary v. Commissioners' Court, 218 Ala. 23, 116 So. 743; State v. Curran, 220 Ala. 4, 124 So. 909.
But the argument is advanced that the body of the law is different from its title, and therefore offends said section 45 of the Constitution for that the Code adopted after having been submitted to the Governor by the commissioner, and through the Governor to the Legislature, was again revised, amended and corrected by legislative joint committee before being duly approved by vote of the Legislature. This insistence is without merit, as the original Act of February 18, 1927, providing for the selection of the commissioner, clearly indicated the purpose that the Code as thus prepared and revised be submitted first to the Governor, showing the revision, and by the Governor submitted to the Legislature with such recommendations as he also might see...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bridges v. State
...a duty will perform that duty. Leonard v. State, 38 Ala.App. 138, 79 So.2d 803, cert. denied 262 Ala. 702, 79 So.2d 808; Smith v. State, 223 Ala. 11, 136 So. 265." In assignment of error No. III, appellant claims that the trial court erred in restricting the cross-examination of the State's......
-
Opinion of the Justices
...Acts, Extra Session 1933, page 189. The last section of Act No. 177 recites: operative upon the happening of a contingency. Smith v. State, 223 Ala. 11, 136 So. 265; State ex rel. Gaston v. Black, 199 Ala. 321, 74 So. 387; State ex rel. Crumpton v. Montgomery, 177 Ala. 212, 59 So. 294; Olms......
-
In re Opinions of the Justices
...Inherently there is no reason why a statute may not provide that it shall be operative upon the happening of a contingency. Smith v. State, 223 Ala. 11, 136 So. 265; ex rel. Gaston v. Black, 199 Ala. 321, 74 So. 387; State ex rel. Crumpton v. Montgomery, 177 Ala. 212, 59 So. 294; Olmstead v......
-
Smith v. State
...136 So. 266 24 Ala.App. 412 SMITH v. STATE. 3 Div. 689.Court of Appeals of AlabamaMay 5, 1931 ... Rehearing ... Denied May 19, 1931 ... ...