No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 August 2014
Validity of Procedure. In the summer of 1925 the appellate division of the supreme court of New York held that the City Home Rule Amendment of 1923 had not been legally adopted and was invalid. In the case of Browne v. City of New York the court of appeals reversed this decision and held the amendment valid. The chief ground of attack on the amendment was, it is believed, unique. It may be stated as follows: The New York constitution requires an amendment to be proposed by one legislature, approved by the legislature chosen at the next election of senators, and then ratified by the voters. The City Home Rule Amendment was proposed by the legislature of 1922, approved by that of 1923, and ratified at the polls in 1923. It was an amendment to Article XII. But the legislature of 1922 had also approved an amendment to Article XII, relatively trivial in nature, which had originated in the legislature of 1920. This amendment was ratified in November, 1922, and went into effect in January, 1923, before the second legislative approval of the City Home Rule Amendment. In other words Article XII, which the City Home Rule Amendment changed, was not the same when the amendment passed the legislature for the first time as when it passed the second time. The appellate division held not only that the amendment must be the same when passed by the two legislatures but that the provision amended must also be the same.
1 Browne v. City of New York, 213 App. Div. 206, 211 N. Y. Supp. 306, 1925.
2 149 N.E. 211, October, 1925. This arose out of a taxpayer's action to restrain the City of New York from spending money to acquire and operate municipal busses under the supposed authority of the City Home Rule Amendment and local laws passed in pursuance of it.
3 The provision of the constitution of 1894 relating to the suspensive veto by cities of special legislation affecting them had stipulated that when such a law was vetoed by the municipal authorities it should be returned to “the house in which it originated.” The amendment of 1922 modified this to require its return to “the clerk of the house in which it originated.”
4 273 S.W. 355, June, 1925.
5 60 Ia. 543, 14 N.W. 738, 15 N.W. 609, 1883.
6 130 Atl. 407, June, 1925.
7 126 Atl. 263, July, 1924.
8 See this Review, vol. xix, page 568.
9 126 S.E. 336, January, 1925.
10 131 S.E. 29, December, 1925.
11 132 S.E. 673, November, 1924.
12 Elledge v. Wharton, 89 S.C. 113, 71 S.E. 657, 1911; State v. Bowden, 92 S.C. 393, 75 S.E. 866, 1912.
13 242 Pac. 332, December, 1925.
14 State v. Magee Publishing Co., 29 N.W. 455, 224 Pac. 1028, 1924.
15 267 U.S. 87, 1925. See comment in this Review, vol. xx, page 85.
16 243 Pac. 407, February, 1926.
17 The authorities and the principles upon which they rest are carefully considered in Kumm's, H. F. article, “Mandamus to the Governor in Minnesota,” 9 Minnesota Law Review, 21, 1924Google Scholar.
18 131 Atl. 265, November, 1925.
19 The others are: Kansas, State v. Grove, 109 Kans. 619, 201 Pac. 82, 1921; New York, Board of Education v. Van Zandt, 234 N. Y. 644, 138 N.E. 481, 1923; California, Blakeslee v. Wilson, 190 Cal. 478, 213 Pac. 495, 1923; Connecticut, Brannan v. Babcock, 98 Conn. 549, 120 Atl. 150, 1923; Tennessee, Miller v. Miller, 149 Tenn. 463, 261 S.W. 965, 1924.
20 Anway v. Grand Rapids Ry. Co., 211 Mich. 592, 179 N.W. 350, 1920. See comment on this case in this Review, vol. xv, p. 407.
21 128 Atl. 759, April, 1925.
22 149 N.E. 415, October, 1925.
23 234 Pac. 1068, April, 1925.
24 244 Pac. 798, March, 1926.
25 277 S.W. 218, November, 1925.
26 275 S.W. 797, October, 1925.
27 205 N.W. 17, August, 1925.
28 242 Pac. 658, January, 1926.
29 149 N.E. 891, December, 1925.
30 Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 1925. See comment on this case in this Review, vol. xx, page 87.
31 Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 1914; Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 1921.
32 236 Pac. 1019, June, 1925; 205 N.W. 67, August, 1925.
33 273 S.W. 489, June, 1925.
34 207 N.W. 153, February, 1926.
35 197 N.W. 234, 1924.
36 9 Wheat. 579, 1824.
37 203 N.W. 882, May, 1925.
38 244 Pac. 930, January, 1926.
39 235 Pac. 81, February, 1925.
40 236 Pac. 1053, June, 1925.
41 207 N.W. 213, February, 1926.
42 205 N.W. 9, August, 1925.
43 26 Cal. App. 22, 145 Pac. 733, 1914.
44 244 Pac. 940, February, 1926.
45 233 Pac. 285, February, 1925.
46 In accord with the present case see Pauly v. Keebler, 175 Wis. 428, 185 N.W. 554, 1921; State v. Harris, 134 Minn. 35,158 N.W. 829, 1916. For contrary doctrine see American Surety Co. v. Bank of Italy, 63 Cal. App. 149, 218 Pac. 466, 1923; People v. Holder, 53 Cal. App. 45, 199 Pac. 832, 1921.
47 128 Atl. 821, March, 1925.
48 274 S.W. 1025, July, 1925.
49 Smith v. State, 104 Kans. 629, 180 Pac. 231, 1919; State v. Lyons, 104 Kans. 702, 180 Pac. 802, 1919.
50 235 Pac. 681, April, 1925.
51 234 Pac. 5, March, 1925.
52 206 N.W. 532, December, 1925.
53 In this case nothing but the constitutional question arising under the Fourteenth Amendment was before the court. The case came up from the court of appeals of the District of Columbia.
54 218 Mich. 625, 188 N.W. 330, 1922.
55 Queensborough Land Co. v. Cazeaux, 136 La. 724, 67 So. 641, 1915; Koehler v. Rowland, 275 Mo. 573, 205 S.W. 217, 1918. In these cases the restriction ran for only twenty-five years. In Los Angeles Investment Co. v. Gary, 181 Cal. 680, 186 Pac. 596, 1919, a restriction on alienation to one not of the Caucasian race was held void, but the restriction on occupancy was upheld.
56 The rule finds its origin in the statute Quia Emptores, 18 Edw. I, 235.
57 109 Va. 439, 61 S.E. 794, 1908.
59 245 U.S. 60, 1917. [No note 58]
60 104 So. 200, March, 1925.
61 273 S.W. 874, April, 1925.
62 131 Atl. 332, December, 1925.
63 103 So. 477, March, 1925.
64 235 Pac. 1000, April, 1925.
65 184 U.S. 540, 1902.
66 128 S.E. 172, May, 1925.
67 129 S.E. 861, September, 1925.
68 204, N.W. 140, June, 1925.
69 130 S.E. 516, November, 1925.
70 Smith v. Board of Examiners of Feeble-minded, etc. 85 N.J.L. 46, 88 Atl. 963, 1913.
71 Osborn v. Thompson, 103 Misc. Rep. 23, 169 N.Y. Supp. 638, affirmed in 185 App. Div. 902, 171 N.Y. Supp. 1094, 1918.
72 Haynes v. Judge, 201 Mich. 138, 166 N.W. 938, 1918.
73 70 Wash. 65, 126 Pac. 75, 1912.
74 Davis v. Berry, 216 Fed. 413, 1914.
75 Mickle v. Heinrichs, 262 Fed. 687, 1918.
76 Williams v. Smith, 190 Ind. 526, 131 N.E. 2, 1921. This point was also urged by the court in Davis v. Berry, supra.
77 An excellent survey of this whole problem is found in the article by Professor Shartel, Burke, “Sterilization of Mental Defectives,” 24 Michigan Law Review, 1, 1925CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
78 129 S.E. 640, September, 1925.
79 205 N.W. 932, November, 1925.
80 261 U.S. 525, 1923. For comment on this case see this Review, vol. xviii, page 54.
81 237 Pac. 1041, July, 1925.
82 Murphey v. Sardell, Oct. 19, 1925. 269 U. S. — Justice Brandeis dissented.
83 279 S.W. 350, November, 1925.
84 Riley v. Chambers, 181 Cal. 589, 185 Pac. 855, 1919.
85 150 N.E. 497, January, 1926.
86 243 Pac. 55, December, 1925.
87 147 N.E. 750, April, 1925.
88 128 Atl. 80, February, 1925.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.