Pioneer Irrigation District v. Bradley
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Canyon County. If the title to an act actually indicates, and the act itself actually embraces, two different objects, when the constitution says it shall embrace but one, the whole act must be treated as' void from the manifest impossibility in the court choosing between the two, and holding the act valid as to one and void as to the other.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Canyon County. If the title to an act actually indicates, and the act itself actually embraces, two different objects, when the constitution says it shall embrace but one, the whole act must be treated as' void from the manifest impossibility in the court choosing between the two, and holding the act valid as to one and void as to the other. (Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, sec. 148, p. 178; Antonio v. Gould, 34 Tex. 49; State v. McCracken, 42 Tex. 383.) “The practice of bringing together into one bill subjects diverse in their nature and having no necessary…
1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, J.
— This action was commenced to obtain the confirmation of the district court of the third judicial district, in and for Canyon county, of the proceedings under and. by which the respondent, the Pioneer Irrigation District, was organized, and the proceedings had and done by it relative to the assessment of the real estate within said irrigation district, and the issuance and sale of certain bonds of said district. The respondent district having filed its petition for said purpose in said court, the appellant, being a party in interest, appeared and demurred to said petition. Said demurrer put…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Montclair v. RamsdellSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Commonwealth v. BrownSupreme Court of Virginia · 1895
- State v. CassidySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Winters v. City of DuluthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- State ex rel. Attorney General v. RansonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. v. PFOST, COMMISSIONER OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Keenan v. PriceIdaho Supreme Court · 1948
- Smallwood v. JeterIdaho Supreme Court · 1926
- Alford v. State ex rel. Attorney GeneralSupreme Court of Alabama · 1910
- In re CraneIdaho Supreme Court · 1915
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.