State ex rel. Clancy v. Hall
Citations
- 23 N.M. 422
- 168 P. 715
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Thei'e is a presumption in favor of the constitutionality of a statute, and in accordance therewith, when a statute is susceptible of two constructions, one of which supports the act and gives it effect, and the other renders it unconstitutional and void, the former will be adopted, even though the latter may be the more natural interpretation of the language used. Held, that chapter 111, Laws 1917, is not unconstitutional and void, because it appoints a commission for the “investigation and settlement” of the Colorado-New Mexico boundary, as it will be presumed the Legislature did not intend to authorize the commission itself to make a binding settlement, but only to conduct negotiations for a settlement, which would ultimately be approved by the Legislatures of the two states. ' P. 426</p> <p>2. Said act is not unconstitutional and void because it authorizes the commission to “commence and prosecute any and all actions necessary and requisite in the judgment of the commission for the proper determination and location of said boundary lines.” P. 429</p> <p>3. The act is not a delegation of legislative power, because the Legislature itself authorizes and directs the institution of the suit, and makes the boundary commission the agent of the state for the purpose of so doing. P. 429</p> <p>4. The court will not look behind the enr'olled and engrossed bill, properly signed and certified as required by the Constitution, and filed in the office of the secretary of state, to the journal of either house, of the Legislature, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Legislature has observed the constitutional requirements as to procedure in the passage of the bill; Kelley v. Marrón, 21 N. M. 239, 153 Pac. 262, followed.</p> <p>P. 431</p> <p>5. Where the state Constitution does not prescribe the duties of the Attorney General, it is competent for the Legislature to authorize named attorneys to appear for the state in litigation affectin
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that prior decision invalidating Connecticut mechanic’s lien statute was based upon both state and federal constitutional grounds and reaffirming prior decision
- holding that prior decision invalidating Connecticut mechanic's lien statute was based upon both state and federal constitutional grounds and reaffirming prior decision
- determining on remand from U.S. Supreme Court that its earlier finding of a constitutional violation implicated both the Connecticut and federal constitutions
- right to hearing under federal constitution
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Hanna, Raynolds, Roberts
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.