No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
State Constitutional Law in 1928–1929*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 August 2014
Extract
No new constitution was adopted in any state in 1928–29, and relatively few legal problems concerning the amending process were decided during the year. The South Carolina court upheld an amendment proposed by the legislature and ratified by the voters notwithstanding attacks based on the inclusion of several subjects in the resolution proposing the amendment, the failure of the officers charged with the preparation of the ballots to print the amendment in full, and the absence of the title of the amendment from the journals of the legislature, the title being entered on the journals only as part of the resolution proposing the amendment. Such a provision as that contained in Article in, Section 17, of the constitution of South Carolina providing that “every act or resolution having the force of law shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title,” might well be held not to apply to resolutions proposing amendments to the constitution, but to be restricted in application to ordinary acts of legislation, thus distinguishing acts of legislation from constituent acts. The court did not consider this distinction, but settled the case on its merits, deciding that the resolution did not contain separate subjects, that the ballots need not contain the entire text of the amendment, and that it was sufficient if the resolution proposing the amendment containing the title was printed in the journals of the two houses.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1929
Footnotes
*
Cf. GodshallW. L., “State Constitutional Law in 1928–1929*,” in this Review, vol. 23, p. 404. Cases decided after May 1, 1929, are not covered in the present article.
References
1 Fleming v. Royall, 143 S. E. 162 (S. C. 1928).
2 Duncan v. Record Publishing Co., 143 S. E. 31 (S. C. 1927).
3 Miller v. Armstrong, 270 Pac. 877 (Col. 1928).
4 269 Pac. 818 (Wash. 1928).
5 Chambers v. McCollum, 272 Pac. 707 (Idaho 1928).
6 In re Cate, 273 Pac. 617 (Cal. D. C. App. 1928).
7 11 S. W. (2d) 278 (Mo. 1928).
8 In re Edwards, 266 Pac. 665 (Idaho 1928).
9 Tillotson v. Frohmiller, 271 Pac. 867 (Ariz. 1928).
10 Northern Pac. Ry. v. Bennett, 272 Pac. 987 (Mont. 1928).
11 Appeal of Beasley Bros., 202 N. W. 306 (Ia. 1928).
12 Duck Island Hunting & Fishing Club v. Gillen Dock Co., 161 N. E. 300 (Ill. 1928).
13 Klein v. City of Louisville, 6 S. W. (2d) 1104 (Ky. 1928).
14 Moody v. Jones, 9 S. W. (2d) 446 (Tex. 1928).
15 City of Ft. Smith v. Roberts, 9 S. W. (2d) 75 (Ark. 1928).
16 141 Atl. 714 (Md. 1928).
17 In re Farmers State Bank of North Branch, 219 W. N. 916 (Minn. 1928).
18 Consumers Sand Co. v. Executive Council of Kansas, 126 Kan. 233, 268 Pac. 123 (1928).
19 State ex rel. Foster-Wyman Lumber Co. v. Superior Court, 267 Pac. 770 (Wash. 1928).
20 State v. Hughesville Special Road District, 6 S. W. (2d) 594 (Mo. 1928).
21 Columbus, Del. & Marion Electric Co. v. Bd. of County Commrs., 118 Oh. St. 501, 161 N. E. 538 (1928).
22 People ex rel. Bensenville Community High School, 333 Ill. 430, 164 N. E. 696 (1928). But see In re Common School District, 222 N. W. 690 (S. D. 1928).
23 City of Stockton v. Frisbie & Latta, 270 Pac. 270 (Cal. 1928).
24 Hagood v. Daughton, 195 N. C. 811, 143 S. E. 841 (1928).
25 See State ex rel. Carson v. Kozu, 270 Pac. 513 (Ore. 1928), suit to enjoin secretary of state from printing bill proposed by initiative.
26 Weer v. Page, 141 Atl. 518 (Md. 1928), discussing conditions under which court will review action of officer rejecting application for permission to incorporate.
27 See supra note 25.
28 People v. Cary, 245 Ill. App. 100 (1927). See state v. McGinnis, 7 S. W. (2) 259 (Mo. 1928), holding that as long as the trial court sentence was within the penal statute the appellate court would not disturb. Also Fox v. Commonwealth, 161 N. E. 803 (Mass. 1928).
29 161 N. E. 865 (Ill.1928).
30 Curry v. State, 12 S. W. (2) 796 (Tex. Crim. App. 1928).
31 In re Cate, 270 Pac. 968 (Cal. 1928).
32 In re Albori, 272 Pac. 321 (Cal. D. C. App. 1928); Empire Investment Co. v. Hutchings, 144 S. E. 209 (Ga. 1928).
33 Commonwealth Oil Co. v. Turk, 118 Oh. St. 273, 160 N. E. 856 (1928).
34 State ex rel. Weich v. City of Red Wing, 175 Minn. 222, 220 N. W. 611 (1928).
35 State v. White, 119 So. 807 (Miss. 1929).
36 State v. Gillette's Estate, 10 S. W. (2) 784 (Tex. Comm. of App. 1928).
37 State v. Sullivan, 116 So. 255 (Fla. 1928).
38 In re Opinions of Justices, 117 So. 50 (Ala. 1928).
39 267 Pac. 70 (N. Mex. 1928).
40 State ex rel. Byram v. Johnson, 173 Minn. 271, 217 N.W. 351 (1927).
41 State ex rel. Babb v. Mathews, 273 Pac. 352 (Okla. 1928).
42 Leonard v. Willcox, 142 Atl. 762 (Vt. 1928).
43 Ex parte Kelly, 10 S.W. (2) 728 (Tex. Crim. App. 1928).
44 8 S.W. (2) 571 (Tex. Civ. App. 1928).
45 11 S.W. (2) 133 (Ky. 1928).
46 Roanoke Waterworks Co. v. Roanoke Glass Co., 144 S.E. 460 (Va. 1928).
47 Baker v. State, 5 S.W. (2) 337 (Ark. 1928).
48 Plankers v. Plankers, 220 N.W. 414 (Minn. 1928).
49 In re Burns, 271 Pac. 439 (Mont. 1928).
50 Pace v. State, 7 S.W. (2) 29 (Ark. 1928).
51 State ex rel. Turner v. Albin, 118 Oh. St. 527, 161 N.E. 792 (1928).
52 Jones v. State, 145 S.E. 914 (Ga. App. 1928).
53 Campbell v. Jeffries, 244 Mich. 145, 161 N.W. 138 (1928).
54 164 N.E. 408 (Ind. 1928).
55 State ex rel. Turner v. Albin, 118 Oh. St. 527, 161 N.E. 792 (1928).
56 See cases cited in notes 50–55.
57 See case cited in note 51.
58 Supra, note 52.
59 Plankers v. Plankers, 220 N.W. 414 (Minn. 1928).
60 In re Burns, 271 Pac. 439 (Mont. 1929).
61 Moore v. State, 272 Pac. 1032 (Okla. Crim. App. 1928).
62 Baker v. State, 5 S.W. (2) 337 (Ark. 1928).
63 Pace v. State, 7 S.W. (2) 29 (Ark. 1928).
64 State ex rel. Yapp v. Chase, 265 Minn. 268, 206 N.W. 396 (1925). Young, J. S. “Reorganization of the Administrative Branch of the Minnesota Government,” this Review, vol. 20, p. 69Google Scholar, discusses the 1925 reorganization statute and the powers and functions of the commission on administration and finance.
65 175 Minn. 503, 222 N.W. 285 (1928). See also, to the same effect, State ex rel. Weaver v. Babcock, 175 Minn. 590, 220 N.W. 287 (1928).
66 175 Minn. 259, 220 N.W. 951 (1928).
67 219 N.W. 125 (S. D. 1928).
68 State ex rel. Putnam v. Holm, 172 Minn. 162 (1927). This case contains a good discussion of cases from other states and distinguishes many of them on the basis of the phraseology employed in the various constitutional provisions governing the veto.
69 144 S.E. 227 (S. C. 1928).
70 Marmon Motor Car Company v. Sparks, 161 N.E. 647 (Ind. 1928).
71 Ex parte Youatler, 268 Pac. 423 (Okla. 1928).
72 Ex parte Gore, 4 S.W. (2) 39 (Tex. 1928).
73 People v. Jennings, 248 N. Y. 46, 161 N.E. 326 (1928).
74 Ex parte Strauss, 7 S.W. (2) 1000 (Mo. 1928).
75 Ex parte Davenport, 7 S.W. (2) 589 (Tex. 1928).
76 Ex parte Butler, 269 Pac. 786 (Okla. 1928).
77 State v Hamilton, 220 N.W. 313 (Ia. 1928).
78 For a discussion of the situation in Illinois, see Mott, , “Reapportionment in Illinois,” this Review, vol. 21, p. 598Google Scholar.
79 333 Ill. 437, 164 N.E. 665 (1928).
80 See Boggs v. Jordan, 267 Pac. 696 (Cal. 1928), for an attempt to correct the apparent inequalities existing in legislative representation in California.
81 Rainey v. Taylor, 143 S.E. 383 (Ga. 1928).
82 Leopold v. Ninth Senatorial District Democratic Committee, 8 La. App. 232 (1927). See also State ex rel. Beck v. Erickson, 221 N. W. 245 (Minn. 1928), the name of the candidate for the legislature not to be printed on the ballot because he had not lived in the district a sufficient length of time.
83 Peay v. Nolan, 7 S.W. (2) 815 (Tenn. 1928).
84 In re Wilkins, 219 N.W. 9 (Neb. 1928).
85 People v. Guido, 269 (Cal. D. C. App. 1928).
86 Gross v. Fiscall Court, 9 S.W. (2) 1006 (Ky. 1928).
87 Lepanto Special School District v. Cone, 5 S.W. (2) 332 (Ark. 1928).
88 Jackson Lmbr. Co. v. Walton County, 116 So. 771 (Fla. 1928).
89 Culpet v. Commrs. of Chesterton, 141 Atl. 410 (Md. 1928).
90 Thompson v. Secretary of Commonwealth, 163 N.E. 192 (Mass. 1928).
91 State ex rel. Babb v. Mathews, 273 Pac. 352 (Okla. 1928).
92 Alabama State Bridge Corporation v. Smith, 116 So. 695 (Ala. 1928); Klein v. City of Louisville, 224 Ky. 624, 6 S.W. (2) 1104 (1928).
93 Montgomery v. Martin, 143 Atl. 505 (Pa. 1928).
94 State v. Executive Council, 222 N.W. 737 (Ia. 1929).
95 Loomis v. Callahan, 220 N.W. 816 (Wis. 1928).
96 Theisen v. Robison, 8 S.W. (2) 646 (Tex Sup. Ct. 1928).
97 Bd. of Educ. of Detroit v. Fuller, 242 Mich. 186, 218 N.W. 764 (1928).
98 State ex rel. Stephens v. Keaster, 266 Pac. 387 (Mont. 1928).
99 Udall v. State Loan Bd., 273 Pac. 721 (Ariz. 1929).
100 Hunt-Forbes Construction Co. v. Robinson, 12 S.E. (2) 303 (Ky. 1928).
101 State v. Clements, 117 So. 296 (Ala. 1928).
102 Flood, etc., v. State ex rel. Homland, 117 So. 285 (Fla. 1928).
103 Alabama State Bridge Corp. v. Smith, 116 So. 695 (Ala. 1928).
104 Merriman v. Hutchinson, 116 So. 271 (Fla. 1928).
105 Clerk v. City of Burlington, 143 Atl. 677 (Vt. 1928). See also Fraser v. Vermillion Mining Co., 221 N.W. 13 (Minn 1928), on mining royalty tax, held uniform; Porter v. First Nat. Bk. of Panama City, 119 So. 130 (Fla. 1928); State ex rel. Mo. State Life Ins. Co. v. Gehner, 8 S.W. (2) 1068 (Mo. 1928).
106 Clark v. City of Burlington, 143 Atl. 677 (Vt. 1928).
107 Home Accident Ins. Co. v. Industrial Comm., 269 Pac. 501 (Ariz. 1928).
108 Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Daughton, 196 N. C. 145, 144 S.E. 701 (1928).
109 Martin v. Dade Muck Land Co., 116 So. 448 (Fla. 1928).
110 State ex rel. Gentry v. Curtis, 4 S.W. (2) 467 (Mo. 1928).
111 Penick v. Ford, 116 So. 572 (La. 1928).
112 Scott County v. Johnson, 222 N.W. 378 (1928).
113 Chicago, North Shore & Milw. Ry. v. Chicago, 331 Ill. 360, 163 N.E. 141 (1928).
114 In re Hawkins, 222 N.W. 108 (Mich. 1928).
115 Hunt County v. Rains County, 7 S.W. (2) 648 (Tex. Civ. App. 1927).
116 Hudgins v. Foster, 267 Pac. 645 (Okla. 1928); Roberts v. Ledgerwood, 272 Pac. 448 (Okla. 1928).
117 Butler v. Williams, 270 Pac. 697 (Cal. Dist. Ct. of App. 1928).
118 Ward v. Bond, 10 S.W. (2) 590 (Tex. Civ. App. 1928).
119 In re Freeholders, 143 Atl. 536 (N. J. 1928).
120 Dancy v. Peebly, 270 Pac. 311 (Okla. 1928).
121 Grigsby v. Harris, 27 F. (2d) 942 (D. C. Tex. 1928). Commenting on the action of some of the southern states following the decision overturning the white primary law, Professors Ogg and Ray state, in their Introduction to American Government (3rd ed., 1928), p. 699Google Scholar: “Not to be frustrated, however, the Texas legislature, which happened to be in session when this decision was announced, forthwith passed a new ‘white primary’ law giving every political party in the state, through its state executive committee, the power to ‘prescribe the qualifications of its own members,’ and thus to determine ‘who shall be qualified to vote or otherwise participate in such political party.’ In other words, the less direct, but equally effective, method of handling the matter already in use in Alabama, Florida, and other states was adopted.”
122 In re Opinion to the Governor, 142 Atl. 372 (R. I. 1928).
123 State v. Butterworth, 142 Atl. 57 (N. J. Ct. of Errors 198).
124 Burkitt v. Beggans, 142 Atl. 181 (N. J. Ct. of Chancery 1928).
125 State ex rel. Olson v. Guilford, 219 N.W. 770 (Minn. 1928).
126 Brown v. Brown, 4 S.W. (2) 345 (Tenn. 1928).
127 Ibid.
128 Dickey v. Dickey, 141 Atl. 387 (Md. 1928).
129 Ex parte Frisbie, 27 Oh. App. 290, 161 N.E. 356 (1927).
130 People v. La Mothe, 331 Ill. 351, 163 N.E. 6 (1928).
131 State v. Zywicki, 221 N.W. 900 (Minn. 1928).
132 Ex parte Rosencrantz, 271 Pac. 902 (Cal. 1928).
133 Ex parte Carter, 9 S.W. (2) 1107 (Tex. Crim. App. 1928).
134 Ex parte Westcott, 270 Pac. 247 (Cal. 1928).
135 See, for example, Commonwealth v. Creconan, 162 N.E. 7 (Mass. 1928); State v. Williams, 6 S.W. (2) 915 (Mo. 1928); Compton v. People, 268 Pac. 577 (Col. 1928).
136 People ex rel. Battista v. Christian, 224 App. Div. 243, 229 N. Y. S. 644 (1928).
137 Miller v. State, 218 N.W. 742 (Neb. 1928).
138 State v. Vigil, 266 Pac. 920 (N. Mex. 1928).
139 268 Pac. 909 (Cal. 1928).
140 State v. Dreher, 118 So. 85, 166 La. 924 (1928), statute providing that no woman shall be drawn for jury service unless she has filed declaration of desire to be subject to such service, the declaration to be filed with a clerk of the district court.
141 State ex rel. Kuhr v. District Court, 268 Pac. 501 (Mont. 1928).
142 Beaster v. State, 272 Pac. 391 (Okla. Crim. App. 1928).
143 119 So. 177 (Miss. 1928).
144 267 Pac. 490 (Okla. Crim. App. 1928).
145 Jordan v. State, 11 S.W. (2) 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 1928).
146 11 S.W. (2) 959 (Ky. 1928).
147 271 Pac. 926 (Cal. D. C. App. 1928).
148 Rembrandt v. Cleveland, 161 N.E. 364 (Ohio 1928).
149 329 Ill. 612, 161 N.E. 137 (1928).
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.