State v. Williams

Supreme Court of Alabama

State v. Williams

93 So. 381, 207 Ala. 517, 1922 Ala. LEXIS 156, 18 Ala. App. 513, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 186

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 16, 1922

Docket8 Div. 852.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 93 So. 381 (State v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Williams, 93 So. 381, 207 Ala. 517, 1922 Ala. LEXIS 156, 18 Ala. App. 513, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 186 (Ala. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

*518 SOMERVILLE, J.

The Court of Appeals being of the opinion that the act approved August 9,1919 (Gen. Acts 1919, p. 194), which prohibits live stock from running at large “in all counties having a population of not less than thirty thousand nine hundred and not exceeding thirty thousand nine hundred seventy-five, according to the last or any subsequent federal census,” and provides for enforcement and penalties, is in violation of subdivision 23 of section 104, and also of section 105 of the Constitution of Alabama, certifies the question to this court for determination, as provided by law.

The act cannot be a general act, since, as the court judicially knows, it applies to only one county in the state, viz. Lauder-dale. Reynolds v. Collier, 204 Ala. 38, 85 South. 465. Being a local act, pure and simple, it is manifestly prohibited by subdivision 23 of section 104 of the Constitution, which forbids the creation of stock law districts by special or local laws, and must therefore be pronounced null and void.

Let this conclusion be duly certified to the Court of Appeals.

And the Justices concur.

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

*518 SOMERVILLE, J.

The Court of Appeals being of the opinion that the act approved August 9,1919 (Gen. Acts 1919, p. 194), which prohibits live stock from running at large “in all counties having a population of not less than thirty thousand nine hundred and not exceeding thirty thousand nine hundred seventy-five, according to the last or any subsequent federal census,” and provides for enforcement and penalties, is in violation of subdivision 23 of section 104, and also of section 105 of the Constitution of Alabama, certifies the question to this court for determination, as provided by law.

The act cannot be a general act, since, as the court judicially knows, it applies to only one county in the state, viz. Lauder-dale. Reynolds v. Collier, 204 Ala. 38, 85 South. 465. Being a local act, pure and simple, it is manifestly prohibited by subdivision 23 of section 104 of the Constitution, which forbids the creation of stock law districts by special or local laws, and must therefore be pronounced null and void.

Let this conclusion be duly certified to the Court of Appeals.

And the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 So. 381, 207 Ala. 517, 1922 Ala. LEXIS 156, 18 Ala. App. 513, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-williams-ala-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack