State ex rel. Rodes v. Warner
Supreme Court of Missouri
Mandamus. (1) The provision of the said act requiring fines collected thereunder to be paid into the Game Protection Fund instead of to the school fund, is constitutional. A legislative act is not to be declared void unless the violation of the Constitution is so manifest as to leave no room for reasonable doubt. State v. Lay-ton, 160 Mo. 474. An infraction of the Constitution must be plain and obvious to be fatal to the act.
Read the full summary
Mandamus. (1) The provision of the said act requiring fines collected thereunder to be paid into the Game Protection Fund instead of to the school fund, is constitutional. A legislative act is not to be declared void unless the violation of the Constitution is so manifest as to leave no room for reasonable doubt. State v. Lay-ton, 160 Mo. 474. An infraction of the Constitution must be plain and obvious to be fatal to the act. State v. Whitaker, 160 Mo. 59; Sutton v. Phillips, 116 N. C. 502. (2) Section eight of article eleven of the Missouri Constitution provides that the “clear proceeds” of…
1Opinion of the CourtLamm, J.
In 1905 the General Assembly of the State of Missouri passed an act entitled “An Act relating to the preservation, propagation and protection of game animals, birds and fish; creating the office of game and fish warden; creating a game protection fund, and appropriating money therefrom,” in 71 sections. [Laws 1905, p. 158.]
By section 38, it is provided that the Governor shall “appoint some person skilled in matters relating to birds, game and fish, a resident of the State, game and fish warden.” And this official is put under bond and given large powers and multiplied duties. Thereafter the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Huntington v. AttrillSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- The AntelopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1825
- Tayloe v. T. & S. SandifordSupreme Court of the United States · 1822
- United States v. ChouteauSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- State v. BockstruckSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Erickson Ex Rel. United States v. American Institute of Biological SciencesDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 1989
- State ex rel. Barrett v. HitchcockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- Pitman v. DrabelleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1916
- Poole & Creber Market Co. v. BreshearsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1939
- Shore v. EdmistenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.