State ex rel. Selden v. Berka
| Decision Date | 17 November 1886 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF NEBRASKA, EX REL. D. J. SELDEN, v. LOUIS BERKA |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
ORIGINAL information in quo warranto.
Information of relator dismissed.
George W. Doane and John W. Lytle, for relator.
John C Cowin and A. C. Troup, for respondent.
This is an information in the nature of a quo warranto filed by relator, who alleged that respondent usurps the office of justice of the peace in the city of Omaha.
Prior to the year 1885, under the provisions of section seven of chapter twenty six of the Compiled Statutes of 1881, each precinct in the state was entitled to two justices of the peace. Relator held this office in precinct No. 2 of the city of Omaha, and he alleges that at the general election in 1885 he was re-elected to said office for that precinct.
In 1885 the legislature passed an act entitled "An act to amend section 7 of chapter 26 of the Compiled Statutes entitled 'Elections,'" and which act so amended the section as to provide that in cities of the first class but three justices should thereafter be elected, and requiring the county board, in counties containing cities of the first class, to divide such cities into three convenient districts composed of two or more wards or voting districts, for the purpose of electing three justices therein. It is alleged in respondent's answer that the city of Omaha was so divided by the county board in September, 1885, and that he was elected to the office of justice of the peace in one of the districts so formed, and that in January, 1886, he duly qualified and is now legally holding the office.
The question presented for decision is as to the constitutionality of the act of 1885 referred to, and which may be found in the session laws of 1885, at page 249. If the act is unconstitutional, as claimed by relator, then all proceedings under it are void, and respondent must be held as holding the office without authority of law. But if the act is valid, his authority is unquestioned.
There are three reasons assigned by relator why the act referred to should be held to be unconstitutional.
1. That it does not conform to the requirements of section 11 of article 3 of the constitution of this state, which requires that "No bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title." As we have said, the title to the act in question is, "An act to amend section 7 of chapter 26 of the Compiled Statutes, entitled, 'Elections.'" It is claimed that as the original act, passed in 1879--Laws 1879, 240--has a title, which is, "An act to provide a general election law, the procedure relative to contested elections, and the filling of vacancies in office," that said title to the original act is so restrictive as to exclude the idea of a division of cities by the county board as provided in the new act. In other words, that the new act goes outside of the subject matter expressed in the title of the original act, to which it is amendatory, and is therefore unconstitutional and void.
However it might be, were the act strictly an amendment of the former act, or were it designed by the legislature as such, yet we think the objection urged cannot be made to apply to it, for the reason that it did not seek to amend the act of 1879, but rather the section of the chapter of the Complied Statutes of 1881. This compilation was made by authority of law, under the provisions of the act of February 26th, 1881--See Comp. Stats. 1881, Ch. 95--and when made becomes as much the law of this state as though made directly by the legislature itself. It reduced the laws of the state into one compact body, and became its own evidence of the correctness of its contents without "further proof or authentication." It seems therefore competent for the legislature in amending any of its provisions to refer to them as therein contained, without in any way referring to the original acts of which it was composed. This question was before this court in Dogge v. The State, 17 Neb. 140, 22 N.W. 348, and it was there held, as stated in the syllabus and opinion written by the present Chief Justice, that "In amending an act it may be designated by its title or chapter in the Compiled Statutes." We adhere to the rule there stated.
2. It is next contended that the act in question is in violation of section nineteen of article six of the constitution. This section is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State ex rel. Seldon v. Berka
-
Sang v. Beers
... ... of the county, and state senator, and that he was acquainted ... with substantially all the ... ...