Texas Constitution:Article III, Section 1: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 51: Line 51:
* ''Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Chowning'', 26 S.W. 982, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/026_SW_982.pdf#page=3 984-85] (Tex. 1894) ("If it be conceded that the 12 per cent. is a penalty for a failure to pay when due, then the question arises, by what provision of our constitution is such legislation forbidden, and who will determine as to when the public is so interested in the enforcement of contracts as to justify the legislature in enforcing their performance by penalties? There is no clause of our state constitution which expressly or by implication prohibits the act. . . . The article is not in conflict with the constitution of the United States or of the state of Texas, and is valid.")
* ''Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Chowning'', 26 S.W. 982, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/026_SW_982.pdf#page=3 984-85] (Tex. 1894) ("If it be conceded that the 12 per cent. is a penalty for a failure to pay when due, then the question arises, by what provision of our constitution is such legislation forbidden, and who will determine as to when the public is so interested in the enforcement of contracts as to justify the legislature in enforcing their performance by penalties? There is no clause of our state constitution which expressly or by implication prohibits the act. . . . The article is not in conflict with the constitution of the United States or of the state of Texas, and is valid.")


* ''Stanfield v. State'', 18 S.W. 577, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_018_SWR_577.pdf#page=2 578] (Tex. 1892) ("There seems to be a well-recognized distinction, in respect to the question under consideration, between laws affecting only the municipal subdivisions of the state and such as affect the state at large; and, whatever differences of opinion there may be about the application of the rule to the general laws that affect alike the whole state, it seems to be well established that the maxim that the legislative power is not to be delegated is not trenched upon when the legislation merely bestows upon the municipal organizations of the state certain powers of local regulation.")
* ''Stanfield v. State'', 18 S.W. 577, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/018_SW_577.pdf#page=2 578] (Tex. 1892) ("There seems to be a well-recognized distinction, in respect to the question under consideration, between laws affecting only the municipal subdivisions of the state and such as affect the state at large; and, whatever differences of opinion there may be about the application of the rule to the general laws that affect alike the whole state, it seems to be well established that the maxim that the legislative power is not to be delegated is not trenched upon when the legislation merely bestows upon the municipal organizations of the state certain powers of local regulation.")


* ''Tugwell v. Eagle Pass Ferry Co.'', 9 S.W. 120, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_009_SWR_120.pdf#page=3 122-23] (Tex. 1888) ("But the question arises, has the state the right to grant a franchise for a ferry across a stream which constitutes a boundary between it and another state, or between it and a foreign nation? The answer to this is that it has the right, as far as its territory extends; that it, in ordinary cases, to the middle of the stream. This principle is distinctly announced by the supreme court of the United States in ''Conway v. Taylor's Ex'r'', 1 Black, 603. . . . The political jurisdiction of the state extends to its boundary, which, by article 5 of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, is fixed, on the west, at the middle of the Rio Grande river.")
* ''Tugwell v. Eagle Pass Ferry Co.'', 9 S.W. 120, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_009_SWR_120.pdf#page=3 122-23] (Tex. 1888) ("But the question arises, has the state the right to grant a franchise for a ferry across a stream which constitutes a boundary between it and another state, or between it and a foreign nation? The answer to this is that it has the right, as far as its territory extends; that it, in ordinary cases, to the middle of the stream. This principle is distinctly announced by the supreme court of the United States in ''Conway v. Taylor's Ex'r'', 1 Black, 603. . . . The political jurisdiction of the state extends to its boundary, which, by article 5 of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, is fixed, on the west, at the middle of the Rio Grande river.")