Court Opinion

ID: 9831575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:12:41.664909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:36.130445
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant contends that this case should be.reversed and a judgment here rendered in his favor. The argument is that there is no statute which authorizes the adoption of the stock law in Harris county. .As supporting that argument, reference is made to article 6954, Revised Statutes of 1925, to show that Harris county was omitted from a list of those counties which were authorized to determine by special election whether or not horses, cattle, etc., should be permitted to run at large. It is true that Harris county is not included in the list of counties there mentioned. It is also correct to say that, unless so authorized by statute, Harris county would have no right to adopt a stock law. We find, however, that in 1919 á special law was passed which did enable the freeholders of any subdivision of Harris county to adopt a stock law. See Acts 36th Legislature, p. 146. That statute, being a special law, was not affected by its omission from the codification of 1925. See section 19, p. 2421, vol. 2, Revised Statutes of 1925.
The motion is overruled.