Ex Parte Mitchell

Texas Supreme Court

Ex Parte Mitchell

177 S.W. 953, 109 Tex. 11, 1915 Tex. LEXIS 109

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedJune 23, 1915

DocketNo. 2633.

StatusPublished

Cited by30 cases

This text of 177 S.W. 953 (Ex Parte Mitchell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ex Parte Mitchell, 177 S.W. 953, 109 Tex. 11, 1915 Tex. LEXIS 109 (Tex. 1915).

Pincite

Opinions

Me. Chief Justice PHILLIPS

delivered the opinion of the court.

The case presents the question of the constitutionality of the referendum Act of the Thirty-third Legislature, authorizing the qualified voters of any county, or certain political subdivisions of a county, to- determine by an election whether pool rooms or pool halls should be prohibited therein, and making it an offense to there operate or maintain them if the result of the election be in favor of their prohibition.

The constitutionality of the Act is assailed upon two grounds: 1. That it amounts to a delegation by the Legislature of its own legislative power, imposed upon it by the Constitution, which it, alone, must exer *13 cise and which it may not commit to any other agency. 2. That it authorizes the suspension of a general law of the State by the voters of a pounty, or subdivision of a county, namely, the statute licensing the operation of pool halls generally within the State, in violation of article 1, section 28, of the Constitution, which is, “No power of suspending laws in this State shall he exercised except by the Legislature,—” an amendment of previous Constitutions which permitted such suspension under “the authority” of the Legislature.

The Act is plainly unconstitutional, in our opinion, for both of these reasons. We largely rest our decision as to the first question upon State v. Swisher, 17 Texas, 441, where an Act of the Legislature in no way dissimilar in its effect from this one, was, upon this ground, held unconstitutional by the first Supreme Court of the State. That decision has never been overturned, and is the law upon the question; The second question is.equally well settled, according to our view, by Brown Cracker & Candy Co. v. The City of Dallas, 104 Texas, 290, 137 S. W., 342.

A full opinion in the case will be later filed, the preparation of which has been prevented by the approaching close of the term. This, however, indicates the ground of - the decision.

The relator is discharged from custody.

(Mr. Associate Justice Hawkins dissents and will later express his views.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Me. Chief Justice PHILLIPS

delivered the opinion of the court.

The case presents the question of the constitutionality of the referendum Act of the Thirty-third Legislature, authorizing the qualified voters of any county, or certain political subdivisions of a county, to- determine by an election whether pool rooms or pool halls should be prohibited therein, and making it an offense to there operate or maintain them if the result of the election be in favor of their prohibition.

The constitutionality of the Act is assailed upon two grounds: 1. That it amounts to a delegation by the Legislature of its own legislative power, imposed upon it by the Constitution, which it, alone, must exer *13 cise and which it may not commit to any other agency. 2. That it authorizes the suspension of a general law of the State by the voters of a pounty, or subdivision of a county, namely, the statute licensing the operation of pool halls generally within the State, in violation of article 1, section 28, of the Constitution, which is, “No power of suspending laws in this State shall he exercised except by the Legislature,—” an amendment of previous Constitutions which permitted such suspension under “the authority” of the Legislature.

The Act is plainly unconstitutional, in our opinion, for both of these reasons. We largely rest our decision as to the first question upon State v. Swisher, 17 Texas, 441, where an Act of the Legislature in no way dissimilar in its effect from this one, was, upon this ground, held unconstitutional by the first Supreme Court of the State. That decision has never been overturned, and is the law upon the question; The second question is.equally well settled, according to our view, by Brown Cracker & Candy Co. v. The City of Dallas, 104 Texas, 290, 137 S. W., 342.

A full opinion in the case will be later filed, the preparation of which has been prevented by the approaching close of the term. This, however, indicates the ground of - the decision.

The relator is discharged from custody.

(Mr. Associate Justice Hawkins dissents and will later express his views.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 S.W. 953, 109 Tex. 11, 1915 Tex. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-mitchell-tex-1915.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack