Hunt v. State
Citations
- 22 Tex. Ct. App. 396
- 3 S.W. 233
- 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 269
Syllabus
<p>1. Constitutional Provisions are absolutely mandatory, and can in no ease be regarded as directory merely, to be obeyed or not within the discretion of either or all of the departments of the government. See the opinion in extenso for an elaboration of the doctrine, and for a review of the authorities pro and eon.</p> <p>2. Practice—Interpretation of the Codes.—In determining the validity of a statute, assailed upon the ground that its enactment was not in conformity with some express requirement of the Constitution, the courts of this State are not confined to the verity usually imported on the face of the statute, if prima facie valid, but may go behind it to ascertain if the express requirement of the Constitution was observed in its enactment.</p> <p>3. Same.—Section 38 of Article 3 of the Constitution of this State provides as follows: “The presiding officer of each house shall, in the presence of the house over which he presides, sign all bills and joint resolutions passed by the Legislature, after their titles have been publicly read before signing; and the fact of signing shall be entered on the journals.” Held, that the effect of this section of the Constitution is to expressly and imperatively require the presiding officer of each house to sign every enactment in the presence of the body over which he presides, and after it has been read by caption, and that the fact of signing shall be entered upon the journals; and, in order to determine whether such requirements of the Constitution were complied with, the courts are authorized to go behind the statute itself, and ascertain the facts from the journals. See the opinion on the question.</p> <p>4. Same—Constitutionality of a Statute.—The Act of March 19,1885, (Gfen. Laws Nineteenth Leg., p. 34), amendatory of Article 358 of the Penal Code, which prescribes the penalty for the offense of keeping and exhibiting a gaming bank, is unconstitutional, because the journals of the Senate fail to disclose its prop
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- \ought\ as used in state constitution is mandatory
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Willson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Amos v. GunnSupreme Court of Florida· 1922-04-07· cited 91×
- Ellison v. Texas Liquor Control BoardCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1941-07-31· cited 25×
- Waite v. WaiteTex. App. Ct., 14th Dist. (Houston)· 2001-11-21· cited 22×
- People ex rel. Lincoln County v. GeorgeIdaho Supreme Court· 1891-06-03· cited 12×
- Maldonado v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1971-11-23· cited 2×
- Untitled Texas Attorney General OpinionTexas Attorney General Reports· 1969-07-02
- Untitled Texas Attorney General OpinionTexas Attorney General Reports· 1943-07-02
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.