Court Opinion

ID: 9828111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:06:15.061867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:43.669218
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing and to Certify.
In their motions for rehearing and for a certification to the Supreme Court of what they deem the controlling questions in this cause, appellants earnestly ask this court to give an expression of its view upon a particular proposition they raise; that is:
“The trial court erred in rendering judgment for plaintiff bn the theory that the act of the Legislature is local and special, and therefore unconstitutional, for the reason that, even though such act be local or special, it will be conclusively presumed, in the absence of pleadings and proof to the contrary, that the notice of its passage required by our Constitution was given, and that the act is therefore valid.”
In substantiation, it is then pointed out that:
“The pleadings nowhere mention or suggest that the notice of intention to apply in this instance for the passage of a special or local law was not published as required by article 3,. section 57, of our state Constitution, and neither is the matter mentioned or suggested' in any manner by the evidence as shown by the statement of facts.” '
' We do not regard the question suggested as being involved here, for this reason:
Our Constitution (article 3, § 56) declares that — except as otherwise therein provided —the Legislature shall not pass any local or special law regulating the affairs of counties, cities, towns, etc., and, further, that no local or special law shall be enacted where a general law can be made applicable. We adhere to our former conclusions, both that the act here involved is a local and special law regulating the affairs of Harris county, and that a general law could have been made applicable to the subject matter, from which it follows that, under the provisions of article 3, § • 56, referred to, the Legislature was without authority to enact this measure with or without the notice prescribed by succeeding section 57 of the same article. The fact that no notice was given was accordingly immaterial, and the rule of presumption of regularity appellants urge in this connection •has no application.
We still think the two cases cited in our original opinion so directly determine the questions raised adversely to appellants’ contention that we are left with no substantial doubt as to the correctness of our former judgment.
The motions for rehearing and to certify have been refused.