Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1901-04-10
For Respondent.
OPINION
BY Massey,C C.. J.

The relator by this action seeks to COM
pei the respondent, as Secretary of State,
to furnish him a duly certified copy OF
that certain Act entitled IAN Act to reg
ulate the payment Of losses sustained by
holders of full paid up fire insurance
policies" deposited and filed in the re-
spondent's office on the 18th day of Feb
ruary, 1901, and to further compel re-
sponGent to include said Act in the vol
ume containing the published laws en-
acted by the Twentieth Session of the
Legislature of this State.
The controlling facts set up in the petit
ton, and which are admitted t. be true,
are, that the above entitled Act was reg
ularly passed by the Legislature of this
State at its Nineteenth Session, regularly
signed by the proper officers of the two
Houses thereof, presented to the Cover
nor of the State at a time less than five
days before the final adjournment of said
session; that within ten days after the
adjournment the Governor filed said Act
with his objections thereto, in the office
OF the respondent; that thereafter and in
due time the respondent regularly laid
said Act together with the objections of
the Governor, before the Twentieth Ses-
sion of the Legislature Of Nevada. and
the same WAS regularly reconsidered and
passed by vote of more than o-thircis
OF the members elected to each House
thereof, Notwithstanding the Governors
objections, and was filed in the Office OF
the respondent on the 18th day of Febru-
airy. 1901. That the Act when SO filed was
not signed and has not since been sigred
by either of the presiding officers Of the
Senate or iAssembiy of the Twentieth
Session of the Legislature, nor by the Sec
rotary Of the Senate or Clerk of the AS
sembly of said session..
The respondent contends that the Act
is not a law without the attestation Of the
proper officers of the Twentieth Session
of the Legislature, and bases his refusa
to comply with REALTORS demands upoI
that fact. The question presented by thi
contention is the only one to be consider
ed, and it must be determined by the COP
struction placed upon sections Is and 3
of Article Nv Of our Constitution. Will
the question is new one and has com
before this court in this proceeding 70
the first time, yet the construction of sec
ton Is has been repeatedly before thi
court. In all the cases involving a con
struction of said section Is, it has bee
invariably held that the last clause of tn
section requiring the signatures of tn
officers named therein is mandatory, an
that the enrolled bill so authenticated
the only and conclusive evidence that
has been legally enacted.
State v. Swift, 10 New. 176.
State v. Rogers, 10 New. $50.
State v. Glenn, Is New. "a.
State v. Nye, % New. 90.
State v. Beck, Sc Pac. zoos.
1t is not necessary to discuss the reaso
of the rule or quote from the opinion
the resons given. The question was e:
haustively treated in The State v. Swi
supra in which tho authorities from 6
sources were CO llected, analysed and g
planned, and approved or disapproved.
In the State v. Glenn, the rule laid dow
In The State v. Swift was approved, al
Justice Hawley speaking for the cou
declared that "the signing of the bill
the officers designated in the Constit
ton is absolutely essential to its ext
ence as a law" So well settled is Il
rule in this State that the Court as late
1899 when asked to modify it in The ST
v. Beck declined to make any modifi
ton, and upon full consid Grafton decl
ed that the great weight of the dec
ed cases, considered with reference to [