State v. Gordon
Decision Date | 17 November 1914 |
Docket Number | No. 18348.,18348. |
Parties | STATE ex rel. CLARK et al. v. GORDON, State Auditor. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
En Banc. Original mandamus proceeding by the State, on relation of S. J. Clark and others, against John P. Gordon, State Auditor. Peremptory writ issued.
This is an original proceeding in mandamus, instituted in this court by the relators, the directors of consolidated school district No. 1, of Davies county, against John P. Gordon, state auditor, to compel him to register and certify certain bonds of the district issued by it under section 10777, R. S. 1909. No question is raised as to the sufficiency of the pleadings, the proper formation of the district, the election of the directors, or the regularity of the issuance of the bonds.
The sole questions here presented by respondent challenge the constitutionality of the act of the Legislature of 1913 (Acts 1913, pp. 721 to 725, under which the school district was organized). Said act provides for the organization of consolidated schools and rural high schools, and provides state aid for such schools, with an emergency clause. The act consists of nine sections, and are found in the Acts of 1913 on pages 721 to 725, and it reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Field v. Smith
...out those public duties; they are expended for state purposes. Hence, these provisions of the Constitution have no bearing here (State v. Gordon, 261 Mo. 631). These sections seek the same general end as Sec. 47, Art. IV; State v. St. Louis, 1 S.W. (2d) 1021-1026. (4) The Kansas City police......
-
State v. Ward
... ... the subject is single and if it is sufficiently expressed in ... the title, the statute is valid. Southard v. Short, ... 320 Mo. 932; State ex rel. v. Hedrick, 294 Mo. 21; ... Forgrave v. County, 282 Mo. 599; State ex rel ... v. Gordon, 261 Mo. 631; Elting v. Hickman, 172 ... Mo. 237. The constitutional provision requires the title to ... contain the general object of the act, but need not descend ... to details. State ex inf. v. Imhoff, 291 Mo. 603, 238 S.W ... 122; State v. Distilling Co., 236 Mo. 219. It is ... ...
-
Fahey v. Hackmann
...the act clearly expressing therein the subject thereof. Coffev v. Carthage, 200 Mo. 616; Nally v. Home Ins. Co., 250 Mo. 452; State ex rel. v. Gordon, 261 Mo. 631; Booth v. Scott, 205 S.W. 633; State ex rel. Gordon, 268 Mo. 735. (5) The act is now in full force and effect. Secs. 36, 44b, Ar......
-
Asel v. City of Jefferson
...M. Rice and Vance J. Higgs for respondent. (1) The Act of 1919 does not violate Section 28 of Article 4 of the Constitution. State ex rel. v. Gordon, 261 Mo. 639; State ex rel. v. Williams, 232 Mo. 56, 75; State v. Brodnax, 228 Mo. 25, 53; State ex rel. v. Vandiver, 222 Mo. 206, 219; State ......