State v. Morrow
Decision Date | 31 October 1857 |
Citation | 26 Mo. 131 |
Parties | THE STATE, Respondent, v. MORROW, Appellant.<sup>a1</sup> |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. The act of the general assembly of February 8, 1839 (see Sess. Acts, 1839, p. 311,) entitled “an act to amend ‘an act to incorporate the town of New Franklin,’ approved January 16, 1833,” only repealed so much of the seventh section of the amended act as provided that the board of trustees of New Franklin should have power to raise by lottery a sum of money, not exceeding $15,000, for the construction of a railroad from the bank of the Missouri river to the town of New Franklin. The object of the act of 1839 was, not to overthrow the power to raise money by lottery, but to divert the application of the money, so to be raised, from the construction of a railroad to that of a macadamized road. The trustees of New Franklin were authorized, after the passage of the act of 1839, to contract, as provided for in the third section of the act of February 26, 1835, (Sess. Acts, 1835, p. 56,) with any person to have said lottery drawn in any part of the United States, &c.
2. The contract entered into in 1842 by the board of trustees of New Franklin with Gregory is within the protection of the provision of the constitution of the United States, that no state shall pass laws impairing the obligation of contracts.
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.
David I. Morrow was indicted at the May term, 1855, of the St. Louis Criminal Court, under the (R. C. 1845, p. 723), for unlawfully selling, and unlawfully causing to be sold, lottery tickets. Upon the plea of not guilty the jury found a special verdict, which is as follows:
“The State v. D. I. Morrow. We, the jurors empanelled in this cause, do find, as to the issue joined, that in and by an act of the general assembly of the state of Missouri entitled ‘an act to incorporate the town of New Franklin,’ approved January 16, 1833 (see Sess. Acts, 1833, p. 35), it was enacted as follows: And afterwards in and by another act of the general assembly of the state of Missouri, approved February 26, 1835, entitled ‘an act supplementary to an act entitled an act to authorize a sum of money to be raised by lottery to be given to the Sisters of Charity in the city of St. Louis for the use of the hospital over which they now or may hereafter have the control and management,'a1(see Sess. Acts, 1835, p. 56) it was, among other things, enacted as follows:
And afterwards, in and by another act of the general assembly of said state, approved February 8th, 1839, entitled an act to amend ‘an act to incorporate the town of New Franklin,’ approved January 16, 1823, (see Sess. Acts, 1839, p. 311,) it was, among other things, enacted as follows:
And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further find that the trustees in said last mentioned act named did expend and apply the whole amount of funds raised at the time of the taking effect of said act, and did report to the governor that fact, with the condition of the improvements, how the money had been applied, and how far the work had been executed, and how much money would be required to complete the same, according to the tenor and effect, true intent and meaning of said last mentioned act, which report was made in form aforesaid to the governor of the state of Missouri on the seventeenth day of November, in the year 1840; and thereupon the said governor did, on the 21st day of November, in the year last aforesaid, issue his proclamation in the words and figures following:
‘A proclamation by the governor of the state of Missouri: Whereas the trustees of the town of New Franklin, Howard county, have this day made to me the report required by the third article of the act of the general assembly of the state of Missouri, approved February 8, 1839, entitled ‘an act to amend an act to incorporate the town of New Franklin, approved January 16, 1836:
And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further find that on the first...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Miller
...v. Coffee, 59 Mo. 59; State v. West Wisconsin R. R. Co., 34 Wis. 197; State v. Hawthorne, 9 Mo. 389; State v. Morrow, 12 Mo. 279; State v. Morrow, 26 Mo. 131; State v. Miller, 50 Mo. 129; Ang. & Ames on Corp., sec. 736, and High, secs. 680, 690; 2 Dill. on Mun. Corp. (2d ed.), sec. 720; Hul......
-
The State ex rel. Moberly Special Road District v. Burton
... ... implication by Sec. 36, p. 457, Laws of 1917. (2) A repeal by ... implication is not favored in law, and the specific repeal of ... one section of a statute raises a clear implication that no ... further repeal was intended. State v. Morrow, 26 Mo ... 131; State v. Jaeger, 63 Mo. 403; Manker v ... Faulhaber, 94 Mo. 430. (3) Repeals by implication are ... not favored, and are only allowable where a later statute is ... so repugnant and irreconcilable with a former one that both ... cannot stand together. State ex rel. Gordon v ... ...
-
State ex rel. Shaw v. Baker
...this " right," when once vested, cannot be affected by subsequent acts. State v. Hawthorn, 9 Mo. 389; Morrow v. State, 12 Mo. 279; State v. Morrow, 26 Mo. 131; State v. Miller, 50 Mo. 129; State v. ex rel. Miller, 66 Mo. 328; City v. Guyott, 18 Mo. 515; City v. Noland, 21 Mo. 394; State v. ......
-
State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Miller
...been repeatedly decided by this court that this is a contract simply. State v. Hawthorn, 9 Mo. 389; Morrow v. State, 12 Mo. 279; State v. Morrow, 26 Mo. 131; State v. Miller, 50 Mo. 129. 2. But suppose it is a franchise? Then it is an independent one. It has no connection with the spending ......