Court Opinion

ID: 9807926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:20:56.116024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:01.835703
License: Public Domain

Pearson, C. L,
dissentiente. I concur in opinion on the question, as to the jurisdiction of the Court of Equity, and also as to the power of the Legislature to authorise county subscriptions. But I do not concur upon the question of construction ; my opiniou is that only one act was contemplated; that is, the county court of a county proposing to subscribe, (a majority of the acting justices being present) having passed upon the question of subscription, and fixed the amount (which action, on the part of the county court, was necessary, *333as a preliminary measure, in order to present a question for the decision of the voters of the county); that voting “ was the act” which was to determine it.
My mind has been brought to this conclusion,'by a consideration of the wording of the two statutes, of the nature of the proceeding and of the subject-matter. There can be no middle ground ; either a vote of the people, once taken,.must bo decisive, or else, (a majority of the justices being in favor of a county subscription) any amount, may be subscribed., to any and every section of the road, and at any, and all times, whenever a majority of the votes polled may chance to be in its favor! Had this been the meaning, it seems to me different words would have been used ; and the whole authority to subscribe would have been at once conferred on the court, (a majority of the justices being present) without putting the people to the trouble of going to the polls at such a time, and as often as the magistrates, in their good pleasure, should direct a question- to be submitted ; or some provision would have been made, that a voting should not be of effect, unless a majority of the votes of the county went to-the polls.
As the two other Judges have come toa different conclusion, the question is, of course, settled ; and being, one of construction merely, confined- to these two statutes, I should have deemed it unnecessary to file an- opinion, except for the purpose of stating that on the question of the power of the Legislatu/re, there is no difference of opinion.
Per CuriaMj Interlocutory order reversed,.