Court Opinion

ID: 9824583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 10:55:10.386397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:51.926445
License: Public Domain

GARDNER, C. J., and BROWN, J.,
dissent upon the authority of Tucker v. State, 231 Ala. 350, 165 So. 249. That the act here nullified was properly published in accordance with the Constitution is not questioned. The published notice is headed: “A Bill to be Entitled an Act To abolish the Law and Equity Court of Cherokee County, Alabama, making provision for the transfer of pending cases and causes.” Then follows the enacting clause with sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the act abolishing the Law and Equity Court of Cherokee County, and making provision for the transfer of all causes therein pending to the proper court. The act as thus published in full is signed “J. Monroe Mitchell, Representative Cherokee County.” Affidavit of the publisher discloses that this notice was published in the Cherokee County Herald, a newspaper published in the town of Centre, Alabama, in Cherokee County, once a week for four consecutive weeks, beginning the 30th day of April, 1947.
There is indication in the majority opinion that there are other reasonable inter*692pretations to be ascribed to such a publication, that is, reasons aside from the intention that the Act is to be offered for passage in the Legislature. But what these reasons are we are unable to perceive, and, indeed, the opinion does not attempt to state. The very publication of the Act with the signature of Mr. Mitchell, the representative from Cherokee County, with all the provisions in regard to the abolition of the court and the transfer of pending cases should certainly meet substantial requirements of section 106 of our Constitution.
We are persuaded, as indicated above, that Tucker v. State, supra, is controlling and should be here followed.