State Military Note Board v. Casey

47 S.W.2d 23, 185 Ark. 271, 1932 Ark. LEXIS 87
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedMarch 7, 1932
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 47 S.W.2d 23 (State Military Note Board v. Casey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Military Note Board v. Casey, 47 S.W.2d 23, 185 Ark. 271, 1932 Ark. LEXIS 87 (Ark. 1932).

Opinion

Mehaefy, J.

The appellee, Lee Y. Casey, as a citizen and taxpayer of Pulaski County, Arkansas, brought this suit to enjoin the issuance and sale by the State Military Note Board of negotiable notes of the State.

He alleged that act No. 14 of the Acts of the General Assembly of 1931 creating the State Military Note Board and authorizing and enjoining it'to issue and sell negotiable notes, not to exceed $400,000, was void; that senate bill No. 74, which became act 14, was not passed as required by the Constitution. He alleged that it was invalid on the ground that the journals of the two houses of the General Assembly do not show that the bill was agreed to in each house, but that the record shows that the bill was not read three times in the House of Representatives, was not placed on final passage, the vote was not taken by “ayes” and “nays,” and the names of the persons voting for and against the same were not entered on the journal.

It was further alleged that the Military Note' Board had been appointed under the provisions of the invalid act; that it was attempting to, and would, unless restrained, offer for sale and sell the obligations of the State in the amount of $400,000.

The complaint also alleged that the notes should be direct obligations of the State for the payment of which the full faith and credit of the State are pledged, and alleged that the State Military Note Board was without authority to pledge the faith and credit of the State.

The prayer of the plaintiff was that the act be declared invalid, and the defendants and each of them be enjoined from doing any act under the provisions of said act 14.

The appellants filed answer in which they denied that act 14 was invalid, and denied that the bill was not read three times and placed on its final passage, and, in fact, denied all the material allegations of the complaint with reference to the act being void.

It was also alleged in the answer that the legislative journals affirmatively show that every legal requirement was complied with, with reference to the passage of said act.

There was introduced’ a copy of the record of the proceedings on Bill 74, certified by the Secretary of State to be correct.

“Proceedings in the Senate on the Passage of Senate
Bill No. 74, as Shown by the Senate Journal.
“Senate Chamber.
“Little Rock, Arkansas, January 20, 1931.
“Senate Bill No. 74 by Senator Ward the same being a bill for an act to be entitled, 'An Act to Provide the Funds for the Construction or Purchase of Armories for the Use and Benefit of the Arkansas National Guard, to Authorize the Issuance of Notes, and for Other Purposes.’
“Read the first time, rules, suspended, read the second timé and referred to the Committee on Militia.
“January 28,1931.
‘ ‘ Senate.
“Little Rock, Arkansas, January 28, 1931.
“Mr. President: We, your committee on Militia, to whom was referred Senate Bill No. 74, by Senator Ward of the 6th District, beg leave to report that we have had the same under careful consideration and herewith return the same with recommendation that it do pass.
“Respectfully submitted,
“J. Paul Ward,
“Chairman Committee on Militia.
“January 30, 1931.
“Senate Bill No. 74 by Senator Ward, re-referred to Budget Committee.
“February 2, 1931.
“Senate.
Little Rook, Arkansas, February 2, 1931.
“Mr. President: We, your committee on Budget, to whom was referred Senate Bill No. 74 by Senator Ward of Independence, beg leave to report that we have had the same under careful consideration and herewith return the same with recommendation that it do pass.
“Respectfully submitted,
“Roy Milum, Chairman,
“Committee on Budget.
“February 3,1931.
“Special order for tomorrow. Senate Bill No. 74.
“February 4, 1931.
“Senate Bill No. 74, by Senator Ward, the same being a bill for' an act to be entitled, ‘An Act to Provide the Funds for the Construction or Purchase of Armories for the Use and Benefit of the Arkansas National Guard, to Authorize the Issuance of Notes and for Other Purposes.’
“Was placed on third and final passage. The question being shall the bill pass? The secretary called the roll and the following voted in the affirmative:
“Abington, Atkins, Bailey, Bennett, Brewer, Caldwell, Counts, Dillon, George, Hendricks, Kimsey, Lake, McElhannon, MoGehee, Milum, Mitchell, Nelson, Poole, Purkins, Quarles, Shaver, Shuster, Spence, Stewart, Thornton, Wahlquist, Waldron, Walls, Ward, Whaley, Wheatley, Wilson.
“Voted in the negative, none.
“Absent and not voting: Norfleet, Norrell.
“Total No. of votes cast.....................................................33
“Necessary to passage of bill.........................................17
“Total No. voting in the affirmative........................33
“Total No. voting in the negative................._...........00
“Total No. absent and not voting.............................. 2
“'So the bill passed, and the title as read was agreed to.
“Senate Bill No. 74 by Senator Ward having an emergency clause thereon, roll was called, vote as follows:
“Voting in the affirmative:
“Abington, Atkins, Bailey, Bennett, Brewer, Caldwell, Chaney, Counts, Dillon, George, Hendricks, Kimsey, Lake, McElhannon, McGehee, Milum, Mitchell, Nelson, Poole, Purkins, Quarles, Shaver, Shuster, Spence, Stewart, Thornton, Wahlquist, Waldron, Walls, Ward, Whaley, Wilson.
“Voting in the negative, none.
“Absent and not voting: Norfleet, Norrell.

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

Related

McArthur v. Smallwood
281 S.W.2d 428 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1955)
Brown v. Arkansas Centennial Commission
107 S.W.2d 537 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 S.W.2d 23, 185 Ark. 271, 1932 Ark. LEXIS 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-military-note-board-v-casey-ark-1932.