|
|
Line 14: |
Line 14: |
|
| |
|
| ==review== | | ==review== |
|
| |
| https://cite.case.law/pdf/1436032/Henderson%20v.%20Koenig,%20168%20Mo.%20356%20(1902).pdf 21 376 ("But the assertion is made that cases have been decided
| |
| by this court where local or special legislation, that is to
| |
| say, legislation applicable alone to the city of St. Louis, or
| |
| alone to Kansas City, has been held valid. This is true, but
| |
| in the decisions in none of those cases was there any expression or ruling which impinges in the slightest degree on the
| |
| constitutional prohibition against a local or special law being
| |
| enacted where a general law could have been made applicable;
| |
| on the contrary, either distinct or else implied recognition is
| |
| constantly given to the idea that, owing to the circumstances
| |
| and exigencies of the particular case, a general law could not
| |
| have been made applicable, or where it could not have been
| |
| made applicable by reason of the fact that the legislation questioned was the result of direct obedience to some specific command of the Constitution.")
| |
|
| |
|
| x Langdeau v. Bouknight, 162 Tex. 42, 344 S.W.2d 435 (1961) | | x Langdeau v. Bouknight, 162 Tex. 42, 344 S.W.2d 435 (1961) |