State v. Emerson
| Decision Date | 18 June 1940 |
| Citation | 14 A.2d 378,40 Del. 496 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
| Parties | THE STATE OF DELAWARE, upon the relation of James R. Morford, Attorney-General, Plaintiff in Error, Relator Below, v. RALPH W. EMERSON, DONALD P. ROSS and CHARLES D. ABBOTT, Defendants in Error, Respondents Below |
Supreme Court, No. 3, January Term, 1940.
Writ of Error from a judgment entered by the Superior Court for New Castle County (No. 266, September Term, 1939) in favor of the respondents below, the defendants in error, in a quo warranto proceeding.
That proceeding was brought against the said respondents, Ralph W. Emerson, Donald P. Ross and Charles D. Abbott to determine their right to hold and exercise the offices of members of the "State Highway Department," pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 173 of Volume 42, Laws of Delaware.
That Act was entitled: "An Act to Amend Chapter 166 of the Revised Code of Delaware, 1935, Providing for Reorganization of the State Highway Department."
The Relator claimed that the Act in question violated certain provisions of the Constitution of the State of Delaware, and was, therefore, invalid. That was the sole question presented by the Writ of Error. The case was heard in the Court Below on an agreed statement of facts, which will appear in the report of the proceedings before that Court. See 1 Terry (40 Del.) 328, 10 A.2d 515.
The pertinent provisions of Chapter 173 of Volume 42, Laws of Delaware, will, also, appear in that proceeding.
The judgment is affirmed.
S. Samuel Arsht for Relator.
P. Warren Green for Respondents.
OPINION
Our conclusion is that Ralph W. Emerson, Donald P. Ross and Charles D. Abbott have the clear legal right to hold and exercise the offices of members of the State Highway Department, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 173, Volume 42, Laws of Delaware. The same conclusion was reached by the Court Below, and all of the issues involved in the case were so thoroughly considered in the opinion filed by that Court that it seems unnecessary to add anything to what has already been said.
The judgment of the Court Below is, therefore, affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney Gen. v. Schorr
...9 W.W.Harr. 460, 468, 2 A.2d 97, 119 A.L.R. 1422; State ex rel. Morford v. Emerson, 1 Terry 328, 345, 10 A.2d 515; affirmed, 1 Terry 496, 14 A.2d 378. Following the pattern of the National Constitution, our State Constitution also confers the sovereign powers of government on three separate......
-
State ex rel. James v. Schorr
...... Constitutions have placed limitations upon it. . . . Rice v. Foster , 4 Del. 479, 4. Harr. 479; Collison v. State , 39 Del. 460,. 9 W. W. Harr. 460, 468, 2 A.2d 97, 119. A.L.R. 1422; State ex rel. Morford v. Emerson , 40 Del. 328, 1 Terry 328, 345, 10 A.2d. 515; affirmed, 40 Del. 496, 1 Terry 496, 14 A.2d. 378. . . Following. the pattern of the National Constitution, our State. Constitution also confers the sovereign powers of government. on three separate branches, the legislative ......
-
State ex rel. Craven v. Schorr, 524
...... The title gives notice that it concerns the 'reorganization, composition and membership' of the Department. This is sufficient to put any one on notice of the wide scope of the bill. The title need not be an index of the details of the bill, State ex rel. Morford v. Emerson, 40 Del. 328, 344, 10 A.2d 515; Klein v. National Pressure Cooker Co., 31 Del.Ch. 459, 64 A.2d 529, and it is not defective because it does not spell out the two items relator refers to. See Fouracre v. White, 30 Del. 25, 102 A. 186; State ex rel. Morford v. Emerson, 40 Del. 233, 246, 8 A.2d 154. ......
-
Opinions of the Justices, In re
...... office with fidelity, shall give him their opinions in writing touching the proper construction of any provision in the Constitution of this State or of the United States, or the constitutionality of any law enacted by the Legislature of this State.' . [47 Del. 121] In our ... State ex rel. Morford v. Emerson, 1 Terry 233, 40 Del. 233, 8 A.2d 154, affirmed on opinion below, 1 Terry 496, 40 Del. 496, 14 A.2d 378. Moreover (and more to the point here), the ......