State Ex Rel. Diederichs v. State Highway Commission
Montana Supreme Court
1ConcurrenceJustice Angstman
Having participated in the preparation of the court’s opinion, I agree with what is said in it. But in my opinion, determination of this case does not require the drawing of distinctions between debts and liabilities. 'Chapter 1 clearly attempts to authorize the creation of a debt in excess of $100,000, within the meaning of section 2, Article XIII, of our Constitution, and to be effective, must have the approval of the electors. The word “debt” has no strange and peculiar meaning in section 2. Like any other word in the Constitution it must be given its usual and ordinary meaning, and in…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Amos v. MathewsSupreme Court of Florida · 1930
- State Ex Rel. Fletcher v. Executive CouncilSupreme Court of Iowa · 1929
- State Ex Rel. Toomey v. State Board of ExaminersMontana Supreme Court · 1925
- Jordan v. AndrusMontana Supreme Court · 1902