State v. Board of Supervisors
State v. Board of Supervisors
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The State had the right to appeal without giving an appeal-bond. Code, § 2333. Were this not true the appeal would not be dismissed, but a bond or deposit would be received and the appeal be maintained. . In no case can a party lose the benefit of an appeal by any error as to the manner of appealing. The appeal may be perfected here. Code, § 1407. The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
The record presents the question whether a bill which has passed both houses and been signed by their respective presiding • officers and presented to the governor within five days of the adjournment of the legislature, may be signed by the governor and thereby be made a law from that time, after the adjournment of the legislature ?
In Hardee v. Gibbs, 50 Miss. 802, this question was answered in the negative, but we have no hesitation to overrule this decision, which is not supported by reason or authority, and plainly shows a lack of attention to or comprehension of the language of the constitution, The postulate of the opinion iu that case is that the governor, in approving bills, is a’ component part of the legislature, and his signing a bill is a legislative act, and therefore it was said he has no more power to legislate in vacation than either house of the legislature. Grant that the governor in signing a bill, and thereby evidencing his approval, does perform a legislative act, it is as governor he acts, as prescribed by the constitution, and he is governor after the adjournment of the legislature as much as before. The constitution makes the governor an agent in making laws. Every bill passed by the two houses is to be presented to him. If he approves he shall sign it; if not he shall return it with objections within five days (Sunday excepted) to the house in
Is not the approval by the governor, signified by his signing it, what the constitution requires to convert the bill into a law, because of the concurrence of the two houses and the governor in its expression? Is the approval of the governor, as evidenced by his signing the bill, any less potent because done in the vacation of the legislature? It acted, it passed the bill, and adjourned. It then rested with the governor to deal with this completed act of the two houses. It is not yet a law, but a bill. It must receive the approval of the governor to be a law. What hinders his performance of duty as governor with respect to this bill which has passed both houses and been presented to him? Were the legislature in session he must act independently and as governor in dealing with the bill. If he signs he converts the bill into law by his signing. He may inform the legislature or either house of the fact that he has signed, but he need not do this. It is a mere courtesy. His signing makes the bill a law, and its validity does not depend on
Such is the obvious scheme of the constitution. Its provisions are so plain as to exclude interpretation. Argument cannot make-them plainer. The opinion in Hardee v. Gibbs rests on the erroneous assumption that, because the governor in signing a bill performs a legislative act, he must do it during the session of the-legislature. 'Whatever the nature or proper designation of his act in reference to bills passed by both houses and presented to him, he acts independently as governor in pursuance of the constitutional provision, and nothing in the constitution requires or suggests that his performance of his constitutional duty in acting with reference to bills presented to" him shall be performed while-the legislature is in session, but the contrary is plainly suggested by the constitution, and the assertion that he cannot sign a bill in vacation is unwarranted by anything in the language of that instrument or in the nature of the duty to be performed by the governor as a component part of the law-making power.
Our view is abundantly supported by the reasoning of the-following cases: State v. Fagan, 22 La. An. 545; People v. Bowen, 30 Barb. 24; Same Case, 21 N. Y. 517 ; Seven Hickory v. Ellery, 103 U. S. 423.
Even without such support we should feel constrained by the unmistakable language of the constitution to overrule the former decision.
The governor was authorized to sign the bill in vacation, as he-
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- State of Mississippi v. Board of Supervisors of Coahoma County
- Cited By
- 13 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Supreme Court Practice. Defective appeal. Amendment. In no case can a party lose tbe benefit of an appeal to tbis court by any error as to tbe manner of appealing; tbe appeal, if defective, may be perfected bere under § 1407, Code of 1880. 2. Same. Appeal-bond. Appeal by the State. Case in judgment. Section 2333, Code of 1880, applied. Tbe State, by its attorney general, petitioned for a mandamus to compel tbe Board of Supervisors of tbe County of C. to hold a special election under an act of tbe legislature authorizing such an election to be held to determine tbe location for tbe county site of such county. Tbe judge having refused to grant the writ, allowed tbe State to appeal without giving any bond. Held, that the judge correctly dispensed with an appeal-bond under $ 2333, Code of 1880, which provides that tbe State may appeal without bond in any suit or action in which it is “beneficially interested.” 3. Approval op Bill. After adjournment of legislature. Constitutional ■provisions construed. Section 24, article iv, of the State constitution, provides that “Every bill ■which has passed both houses [of the legislature] shall be presented to the governor of the State. If he approves he shall sign it. * * * If any bill shall not be returned by the governor within five days (Sunday excepted) after it has been presented to him it shall be a law:, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the legislature by adjournment prevented its return, in which case it shall be a law, unless sent back within three days after its next meeting.” Under these provisions, a bill duly passed by both houses of the legislature, and presented to the governor within five days before the adjournment of the legislature, may be signed and approved by him, and be thus made a law at any time before or after such adjournment and before the expiration of the three days after the next meeting of the legislature. Har-dee v. Oibbs, 50 Miss. 802, overruled. 4. Statute. Spealcs frtm approval. Casein point. An act of the legislature speaks from the date of its approval by the governor, and where an act passed by the legislature on March 16, 1886, but not approved until August 26, 1886, orders an election to be held in “ August next,” such language must be held to refer to August, 1887, and not to August, 1886. 5. Maelamus. When ashed prematurely. Case im judgment. And in the above-stated case a mandamus to compel the proper authorities to hold such election cannot be granted on a petition presented on January 8, 1887, it being presumed that such authorities will do their duty at the proper time.