From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brunson v. Eagerton

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jan 22, 1925
212 Ala. 384 (Ala. 1925)

Opinion

4 Div. 173.

December 18, 1924. Rehearing Denied January 22, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Coffee County; W. L. Parks, Judge.

W. W. Sanders, of Elba, for appellant.

The provisions of section 4 1/2 of the act are not cognate to the objects or subjects enumerated in the title. Cooley's Const. Lim. 179, 180; Rice v. Westcott, 108 Ala. 353, 18 So. 844; White v. Burgin, 113 Ala. 170, 21 So. 832; Ex parte Gayles, 108 Ala. 514, 19 So. 12; Ham v. State, 156 Ala. 645, 47 So. 126, Windham v. State, 16 Ala. App. 383, 77 So. 963. The act is violation of section 106 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901. Wallace v. Board, 140 Ala. 502, 37 So. 321.

Fleming Yarbrough, of Enterprise, M. A. Owen, of Elba, and M. S. Carmichael, of Montgomery, for appellees.

Section 4 1/2 of the act is germane to the title. Windham v. State, 16 Ala. App. 383, 77 So. 963; Windham v. State, 202 Ala. 697, 79 So. 877; Lindsay v. U.S. S. L. Asso., 120 Ala. 156, 24 So. 171, 42 L.R.A. 783; Lewis v. State, 123 Ala. 84, 26 So. 516; Bates v. State, 118 Ala. 102, 24 So. 448; Ex parte Birmingham, 116 Ala. 186, 22 So. 454. There is no violation of section 106 of the Constitution. Law v. State, 142 Ala. 62, 38 So. 798.


The suit is quo warranto to test the validity of the act of 1923. Local Acts 1923, p. 242.

The provisions of section 4 1/2 of the act are proper, cognate, and incidental to the general purpose of the act as expressed in its title, are referable to the title, and the act is not offensive to provisions of section 45 of the Constitution. The county is divided into two divisions of the circuit court held by law at Elba and Enterprise, respectively. It was a necessary provision to facilitate the drawing of juries, as provided by law, by the judge holding that court in the respective divisions. Leonard v. Lyons, 204 Ala. 615, 87 So. 99.

Section 4 1/2 of the act, added by way of amendment, does not offend section 106 of the Constitution. The substance of the proposed law was given by publication, as required by that section of the Constitution. Law v. State, 142 Ala. 62, 38 So. 798; State ex rel. Covington v. Thompson, 142 Ala. 98, 107, 38 So. 679; Ham v. State ex rel. Buck, 156 Ala. 645, 47 So. 126; Leonard v. Lyons, 204 Ala. 615, 87 So. 99.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Brunson v. Eagerton

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jan 22, 1925
212 Ala. 384 (Ala. 1925)
Case details for

Brunson v. Eagerton

Case Details

Full title:STATE ex rel. BRUNSON v. EAGERTON et al

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Jan 22, 1925

Citations

212 Ala. 384 (Ala. 1925)
102 So. 534

Citing Cases

Brunson v. State

The first and second grounds stated for abating the indictment are based on averments that the local act,…

Opinion of the Justices

An amendment to an act that does not change the substance of the act does not violate Section 106 and related…