Court Opinion

ID: 9613582
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:18:12.945268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:21.722106
License: Public Domain

Lovins, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result reached in this proceeding, and consider that the reasoning in the opinion fully justifies that conclusion. I think, however, that points 6 and 7 of the syllabus are inaccurate in the particulars herein-' after mentioned.
The accuracy of a syllabus prefixed to an opinion of this Court should be free from doubt. Reference to cases and statutes should observe that rule of accuracy so that authorities cited in the syllabus may be located without an extended and laborious search.
The Constitution of this state provides as follows: “When a judgment or decree is reversed or affirmed by the supreme court of appeals every point fairly arising upon the record of the case shall be considered and decided; and the reasons therefor shall be concisely stated in writing and preserved with the record of the case; and it shall be the duty of the court to prepare a syllabus of the points adjudicated in each case concurred in by three of the judges thereof, which shall be prefixed to the published report of the case.” Section 5, Article VIII, Constitution of West Virginia. The language of the foregoing constitutional provision indicates to me that it places the responsibility for the syllabus prefixed to a published report of a case on this Court.
*550It is to be noted that the constitutional provision is directory, but should be followed. Henry et al. v. Davis, 13 W. Va. 230, 252; Hall & Smith v. Bank of Virginia, 15 W. Va. 323, 335; Horner v. Amick, 64 W. Va. 172, 175, 61 S. E. 40. In Horner v. Amick, supra, this Court, speaking by Judge Brannon, held: “Several times this Court has declared that that provision of the Constitution is only directory * * *. It should be fairly applied and all points involving novel questions of law not already settled should be passed on; but I have never been able to see that it demands of this Court discussion again and again and redecision of law well settled about which there can be no dispute, where the rule of stare decisis applies.” See Henshaw v. Insurance Co., 112 W. Va. 556, 565, 166 S. E. 15. In some cases this Court has held that a syllabus is not necessary. See Long v. Potts, 70 W. Va. 719, 75 S. E. 62, where the Court was divided in its opinion; Feamster v. Feamster, 51 W. Va. 506, 41 S. E. 910, where only a question of fact depending on evidence was presented. For a similar holding, see the case of Koonce v. Doolittle, 48 W. Va. 592, 37 S. E. 644.
My objection to the syllabus prefixed to the opinion in the instant proceeding relates to points 6 and 7.
I think the phrases appearing in the 6th and 7th points of the syllabus of the instant, proceeding, “Now Code, 19-24”, are inaccurate. Chapters 47 and 48 of the Acts of the Legislature, 1933, First Extraordinary Session, authorizes horse racing and pari-mutuel betting, and do not, in any. sense, purport to amend the Code of 1931, which is the only official code now existing in this jurisdiction. The same is likewise true of Chapter 71, Acts of the Legislature, 1935, Regular Session, amending and reenacting Chapters 47 and 48 id. It seems that Chapter 71 has been placed in Michies Code of 1949, a private publication, as Article 23, Chapter 19. But I fail to find any legislative authority for so designating it. The same situation prevails with respect to Chapter 158, Acts of the Legislature, Regular Session, 1947.
*551It is true that Chapter 112, Acts of the Legislature, Regular Session, 1953, provides that Chapter 19 of the Code of West Virginia, one thousand nine hundred thirty-one, as amended, [emphasis supplied] be amended by adding a new article to be designated as Article 24. This enactment of the legislature overlooks the fact that prior to the enactment of the 1953 statute, the Code of 1931 had not been amended by a formal provision of a legislative act. To refer to it as now, Code, 19-24, overlooks the hiatus which makes for inaccuracy and incorrect reference.'
Hence, this criticism, based on what I regard as two inaccuracies in the syllabus. Such inaccuracies detract from an otherwise able opinion.