State ex rel. Watkins v. Norton

• Decision Date: 09 May 1911
• Citation: 21 N.D. 473,131 N.W. 257
• Parties: STATE ex rel. WATKINS v. NORTON, Secretary of State.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

21 N.D. 473

131 N.W. 257

STATE ex rel.WATKINS

v.NORTON, Secretary of State.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

May 9, 1911.

Syllabus by the Court.

Section 79, Constitution of North Dakota, among other things, provides:

“If any bill shall not be returned by the Governor within three days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law unless the legislative assembly, by its adjournment, prevent its return, in which case it shall be a law unless he shall file the same with his objections, in the office of the Secretary of State, within fifteen days after such adjournment.”

Held, construing said constitutional provision, that in computing the 15-day period in which the Governor may exercise the veto power after the adjournment of the legislative assembly Sundays are not excepted; consequently the attempted veto of House Bill No. 410, relating to abstracters of titles, passed by the Twelfth Legislative Assembly on March 3d, became a law on March 18th, and the attempted exercise by the Governor of his veto power as to such bill, on March 21st, is of no force or effect.

Mandamus by the State, on the relation of A. R. Watkins, against P. D. Norton, Secretary of State. Writ allowed.Engerud, Holt & Frame, for plaintiff. Andrew Miller, Atty. Gen., and C. L. Young, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.

FISK, J.

On the application of relator, an alternative writ of mandamus was issued on April 28th, returnable on May 4th, commanding the defendant, as Secretary of State, to cause to be published, as required by law, House Bill No. 410, which act was passed by the Twelfth Legislative Assembly on March 3d last, or show cause why he has not done so. On the return day, defendant appeared and urged as a reason why he should not be required to publish said act that the same was duly and regularly vetoed by the Governor.

The act in question is entitled as follows: “A bill for an act to amend sections 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234 of the Revised Codes of 1905 relative to abstracters of titles.”

The undisputed facts are that the Twelfth Legislative Assembly adjourned sine die on March 3d, on which date such bill was duly transmitted to the Governor for his approval or disapproval, and the Governor took no action thereon until March 21st, on which date he assumed to exercise the veto power as to such bill by disapproving the same and returning it, with his disapproval, to the Secretary of State. Between March 3d and March 21st, there were three intervening Sundays, and the sole question for our determination is whether, in computing the 15-day period provided in section 79 of the Constitution of this state in which the Governor may approve or disapprove bills after the adjournment of the legislative assembly, these intervening Sundays shall be included or excluded. Section 79, in so far as the same is applicable, reads as follows: “If any bill shall not be returned by the Governor within three days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law...