Lambert v. Smith

Supreme Court of Virginia

Lambert v. Smith

38 S.E. 938, 98 Va. 268, 1900 Va. LEXIS 37

CourtSupreme Court of Virginia

DecidedMarch 30, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 38 S.E. 938 (Lambert v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lambert v. Smith, 38 S.E. 938, 98 Va. 268, 1900 Va. LEXIS 37 (Va. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

ISTo opinion was delivered, but the following order was entered by the court:

[269]*269“ This day came again the parties by counsel, and the court being of opinion that the act of the General Assembly entitled ‘An act to provide for the appointment of commissioners of valuation, and defining their duties,’ approved March 5, 1900, carries with it an appropriation of public money, and that section 11, article 10, of the Constitution of the State provides that, upon the passage of every such act, ‘the vote shall be determined by ayes and noes, and the names of the persons voting for and against the same shall be entered on the journals of the respective houses, and a majority of all the members elected to each house shall be necessary to give it the force of a law;’ and it appearing from the record that the vote was not taken and entered as provided by said section; and the court being of opinion that it cannot separate so much of the act as appropriates money and hold it to be bad while maintaining the validity of the rest of the law, but that, not having been passed as required by section 11, article 10, above quoted, no part of the act has the force of a law;' and it appearing to the court that the act aforesaid is null and void, by reason of its repugnance to the Constitution of this State, therefore it is considered by the court that the said W. L. Lambert is illegally detained in custody, and it is ordered that he be discharged.”

Petitioner discharged.

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

ISTo opinion was delivered, but the following order was entered by the court:

[269]*269“ This day came again the parties by counsel, and the court being of opinion that the act of the General Assembly entitled ‘An act to provide for the appointment of commissioners of valuation, and defining their duties,’ approved March 5, 1900, carries with it an appropriation of public money, and that section 11, article 10, of the Constitution of the State provides that, upon the passage of every such act, ‘the vote shall be determined by ayes and noes, and the names of the persons voting for and against the same shall be entered on the journals of the respective houses, and a majority of all the members elected to each house shall be necessary to give it the force of a law;’ and it appearing from the record that the vote was not taken and entered as provided by said section; and the court being of opinion that it cannot separate so much of the act as appropriates money and hold it to be bad while maintaining the validity of the rest of the law, but that, not having been passed as required by section 11, article 10, above quoted, no part of the act has the force of a law;' and it appearing to the court that the act aforesaid is null and void, by reason of its repugnance to the Constitution of this State, therefore it is considered by the court that the said W. L. Lambert is illegally detained in custody, and it is ordered that he be discharged.”

Petitioner discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 S.E. 938, 98 Va. 268, 1900 Va. LEXIS 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lambert-v-smith-va-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack