State ex rel. Singleton v. Van Duyne
Decision Date | 03 October 1888 |
Citation | 39 N.W. 612,24 Neb. 586 |
Parties | STATE EX REL. SINGLETON v. VAN DUYNE, CLERK. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
That part of the act of 1887 apportioning the state into representative districts, which relates to Sarpy county, is shown not to have passed both houses of the legislature, and is, therefore, null and void; but the act, so far as it relates to the senatorial districts and the other representative districts, is complete in itself, and capable of enforcement, and within the limits of the constitution, and it will be sustained. The legislature cannot deprive the population of a county of representation in the legislature. Therefore, where, in an apportionment act, a county is omitted, it will retain its representation under the preceding act.
Original proceeding in mandamus.Abbott & Abbott, ( E. A. Gilbert and N. V. Karlan, of counsel,) for relators.
G. H. Hastings and F. J. Foss, ( N. R. Griggs, and J. R. Webster, of counsel,) for respondents.
This is an application for a mandamus to compel the defendant to post notices of the election for senator and representatives in Saline county, under the act of 1881, instead of the apportionment law of 1887, upon the ground that the latter act is void, Certified copies of the journal of each house, so far as they relate to the question presented, are attached to and made a part of the petition. The defendant demurred generally to the petition. As the case is one affecting all portions of the state, the argument was postponed one week, in order to give all parties interested an opportunity to be heard. The case is now submitted on the demurrer.
Section 2, art. 3, of the constitution of 1875, declares that “the legislature shall provide by law for an enumeration of the inhabitants of the state in the year eighteen hundred and eighty-five, and every ten years thereafter; and at its first regular session after each enumeration made by the authority of the United States, but at no other time, the legislature shall apportion the senators and representatives according to the number of inhabitants, excluding Indians not taxed and soldiers and officers of the United States army and navy.” Section 3 also provides that “the house of representatives shall consist of eighty-four members, and the senate shall consist of thirty members, until the year eighteen hundred and eighty, after which time the number of members of each house shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ritchie v. Richards
... ... Application by Morris L. Ritchie against Morgan Richards, ... state auditor, James Chipman, state treasurer, and A. C ... Bishop, attorney ... ...
-
Ballentine v. Willey
... ... The ... relator contends that the state board of canvassers, under ... provisions of the statute, had a ... ...
-
Richardson County v. Hull
... ... children, and the only property possessed by them in this ... state, and that it did not exceed two thousand dollars in ... value during all ... Otoe County, 6 Neb. 111; ... in that of the State, ex rel. Clark, v. Buffalo ... County, 6 Neb. 454; and in Dixon County v ... ...
-
Shellabarger v. The Board of Commissioners of Jackson County
...the apportionment, so far at least as the city of Holton and perhaps the district or county is concerned, is absolutely void. (The State v. Van, Duyne, 39 N.W. 612; Cooley, Const. Lim. [6th ed.] 775; Attorney General Board of Supervisors, 11 Mich. 63; People v. Maynard, 15 id. 463, 469, 471......