Court Opinion

ID: 9830395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:10:34.30198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:21.119434
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Two recitations as of fact in the original opinion are presented as hiving induced error: (1) that Galveston county was not included in the caption of House Bill No. 120 [Gen. & Sp. Laws, 41st Leg. (1929) 1st Called Sess. p. 185, c. 71]; (2) that Senate Bill No. 22 (Gen. Laws 41st Leg. [1929] 3rd Called Sess. p. 240, c. 8 [Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. § 6954]) itself — as on file in the office of and certified to by the secretary of state — did not have the signature of the Speaker. It is now urged that Galveston county had already been brought within R. S. article 6954 by Senate Bill No. 60, passed at the regular session of the 41st Legislature (Gen. & Sp. Laws [1929] p. 9, c. 5 [Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. § 6954]) and that this certified copy of Senate Bill No. 22 was not shown to be a correct copy of the bill that was finally passed.
While we before followed verbatim the mutual statements in the briefs, it does appear that Galveston county had been put under the operation of article 6954 at the previous regular session before House Bill 120 was enacted at the'ensuing called session of the same Legislature, hence it was unnecessary for it to have been again named in the caption of the latter act; but that was only one of the considerations upon which' our former conclusion that it was invalid rested, the main one being that its caption presaged ho intention to amend the existing law in any other way than to include within its operation the several newly designated counties; unconvinced of error in that view, it will be adhered to.
The other presentment, we think, is equally without merit; appellants are not in position to now challenge Senate Bill 22, so certified under their agreement that it correctly reflected the measure on file in the secretary of state’s office, as not being the bill, that the Legislature acted upon, never having raised any such objection in the trial court, especially since the language of the certificate they thus vouch for — as shown by Exhibit No. 9 to the statement of facts — is: “the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Senate Bill 22 passed at the Third Galled Session of the 41st Legislature.”
The motion for rehearing will be overruled.
Overruled.