State v. Brownson
| Decision Date | 11 March 1901 |
| Citation | 61 S.W. 114 |
| Parties | STATE v. BROWNSON et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Information in the nature of quo warranto in the name of the state of Texas against J. M. Brownson and others, officers of a school district. On appeal by the state from an order sustaining a demurrer to the information, a question was certified by the court of civil appeals. Question answered.
J. V. Vandenberge, Dist. Atty., for the State. Proctors and Dabney & Lockett, for appellees.
In this case the court of civil appeals for the First supreme judicial district have certified for our decision the following question: After the certificate was filed here, the court sent up the following additional statement: "The certificate made in this case on the 14th inst. is amended so as to show that the petition alleged that no notice was given, as provided by article 3, § 57, of the constitution, of an intention to apply for the passage of the act in question."
We are of opinion that the legislature did not exceed its authority in passing the act in question. The legislative department of a state government may make any law not prohibited by the constitution of the state or that of the United States. Therefore the rule is that, in order for the courts to hold an act of the legislature unconstitutional, they must be able to point out the specific provision which inhibits the legislation. If the limitation be not express, then it should be clearly implied. The present constitution, as originally adopted, with but few exceptions, gave the legislature unlimited power over the distribution and management of the free-school fund: Sections 1 to 8, inclusive, of article 7 of that constitution relate to the public free schools of the state. Sections 2 and 3 provide what should constitute the public free school fund. Section 4 makes provision for the sale of the lands belonging to that fund, and the investment of the proceeds. Section 5 prescribed what part of the fund should be permanent fund, and what should be available for the maintenance of the schools, and prohibited the application of either to any other purpose, or to the support of any sectarian school. It also directed that the available fund should "be distributed to the several counties according to their scholastic population, and applied in [such] manner as may be provided by law." Section 7 provides for separate schools for white and colored children, and declares that impartial provision shall be made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School Dist. v. Edgewood Independent School Dist.
...power to constitute and regulate school districts. Love v. City of Dallas, 120 Tex. 351, 40 S.W.2d 20, 26 (1931); State v. Brownson, 94 Tex. 436, 61 S.W. 114, 115 (1901). We therefore consider it to be within the Legislature's power to create entities like the CEDs before us as school Appel......
-
Satterfield v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc.
...or that of the United States. See, e.g., Shepherd v. San Jacinto Junior Coll. Dist., 363 S.W.2d 742, 743 (Tex.1962); State v. Brownson, 94 Tex. 436, 61 S.W. 114, 114 (1901). And the courts may not question the wisdom of a constitutional provision. Cramer v. Sheppard, 140 Tex. 271, 167 S.W.2......
-
Shepherd v. San Jacinto Junior College Dist.
...All intendments are against restrictions upon the legislative power and the applicable rule was stated by this Court in State v. Brownson, 94 Tex. 436, 61 S.W. 114 as 'The legislative department of the state government may make any law not prohibited by the constitution of the state or that......
-
Kirby v. Edgewood Independent School Dist.
...& A.P. Ry. Co. v. State, 128 Tex. 33, 95 S.W.2d 680, 686 (1936), or to another provision adopted later in time. State v. Brownson, 94 Tex. 436, 61 S.W. 114, 115 (1901). The wisdom of a constitutional provision cannot be questioned by the courts. Cramer v. Sheppard, 140 Tex. 271, 167 S.W.2d ......