|
continued
32. Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 29 L Ed. 868, 6 S Ct. 734; Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 25 L Ed. 717; Cohens v Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 5 L Ed. 257, State ex rel. Nuveen v Greer, 88 Fla. 249, 102 So. 739, 37ALR 1298; Commissioner of Roads and Revenues v Davis, 213 Ga. 792, 102 S.E.2d 180; Grayson-Robinson Stores, Inc. v Oneida, Ltd., 209 Ga. 613, 75 S.E.2d 161, cert den 346 U.S. 823, 98 L Ed. 348, 74 S Ct. 39; Hillman v Pocatello, 74 Idaho 69, 256 P2d 1072; Henderson v Lieber’s Ex’r., 175 Ky. 15, 192 S.W. 830, 9 ALR 620; Flournoy v First Nat. Bank, 197 La. 1067, 3 So. 2d 244; Re Option of Justices, 269 Mass. 611, 198 N.E. 536, 66 ALR 1477; President, Directors & Co. of Michigan Sate Bank v Hastings (Mich.) 1 Dougl 225; Garden of Eden Drainage v Bartlett Rust Co., 330 Mo. 554, 50 S.W.2D 627, 84 ALR 1078; Anderson v Lehmkuhl, 119 Neb. 451, 229 N.W. 773; State ex rel Stevenson v Tufly, 20 Nev. 427, 22 P 1054; State v Williams, 146 N.C. 618, 61 S.E. 61; Daly v Beery, 45 N.D. 287, 178 N.W. 104; Atkinson v Southern Express Co., 94 S.C. 444, 78 S.E. 516; Ex parte Hollman, 79 S.C. 9, 60 S.E. 19; Henry County v Standard Oil Co., 167 Tenn. 485, 71 S.W.2d 683, 93 ALR 1483; Peay v Nolan, 157 Tenn. 222, 7 S.W.2d 815, 60 ALR 408; Miller v Davis, 136 Tex. 299, 150 S.W.2d 973, ALR 177; Almond v Day, 197 Va. 419, 89 S.E.2d 851; Miller v State Entomologist, 146 Va. 175, 135 S.E. 813, 67 ALR 197, Affd 276 U.S. 272, 72 L Ed. 568, 48 S Ct. 246; Servonitz v State, 133 Wis. 231, 113 N.W. 277; State ex rel Hostetter v Hunt, 132 Ohio St. 568, 8 Ohio Ops 558, 9 N.E.2d 676, reh den.
“Unconstitutionality is illegality of the highest order.”
Board of Zoning Appeals v Decatur Co. of Jehovah’s Witnesses, 233 Ind.83, 117 N.E.2d 115.
33. State v Orie Oldsmobile Two-Door Sedan, 227 Minn. 280, 35 N.W.2d 525; Grieb v Department of Liquor Control, 153 Ohio St. 77, 41 Ohio Ops 148, 90 N.E. 2d 691.
“An unconstitutional statute is of no effect and binding on no one.”
Ex parte Messser, 87 Fla. 92, 99 So. 330.
34. State ex rel. Nuveen v Greer, 88 Fla. 249, 102 So. 739, 37 ALR 1298; State ex rel. Miller v O’Malley, 342 Mo. 641, 117 S.W.2d 319; Bonham v Hamilton, 66 Ohio St. 82, 63 N.E. 597.
35. Chicago I. & L. R. Co. v Hackett, 228 U.S. 559, 57 L Ed. 966, 33 S Ct. 581; Norton v Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 30 L Ed. 178, 6 S Ct. 1121; Louisiana v Pilsbury, 105 U.S. 278, 26L Ed. 1090; Gunn v Barry, 82 U.S. 610, 21 L Ed. 212; Hirsh v Block, 50 App D.C. 56, 267 F 614, 11 ALR 1238, cert den 254 U.S. 640, 65 L Ed 452, 41 S Ct. 13; Texas Co. v State, 31 Ariz. 485, 254 P 1060, 53 ALR 258; Morgan v Cook, 211 Ark. 755, 202 S.W.2d 355; Connecticut Baptist Convention v McCarthy, 128 Conn. 701, 25 A2d 656; Commissioners of Roads and Revenues v Davis, 213 Ga. 792, 102 S.E.2d 180; Grayson-Robinson Stores, Inc. v Oneida, Ltd., 209 Ga. 613, 75 S.E.2d 161 cert den 346 U.S. 823, 98 L Ed. 348, 74 S Ct.; Security Sav. Bank v Connell, 198 Iowa 564, 200 N.W. 8, 36 ALR 486; Flournoy v First Nat. Bank, 197 La 1067, 3 So. 2d 244; Cook v Iverson, 108 Minn. 388, 122 N.W. 251; Clark v Grand Lodge, B. R. T., 328 Mo. 1084, 43 S.W.2d 404, 88 ALR 150; St. Louis v Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co., 317 Mo. 907, 296 S.W. 993, 54 ALR 1082; Anderson v Lehmkuhl, 119 Neb. 451, 299 N.W. 104; State ex rel. Tharel v Board of County Com’rs 188 Okla. 184, 107 P2d542; Atkinson v Southern Express Co., 94 SC 444, 78 S.E. 516; Henry County v Standard Oil Co., 167 Tenn. 485, 71 S.W2d 683, 93 ALR 1485; State ex rel. University of Utah v Candland, 36 Utah 406, 104 P 285; Bonnett v Vallier, 136 Wis. 193, 116 N.W. 885; Brandenstein v Hoke, 101 Cal. 131,0 35 P 885; State ex rel. West v Butler, 70 Fla. 102, 69 So. 771; Briggs v Campbell, Wyant & Cannon Foundry Co., 2 Mich. App 204, 139 N.W.2d 752; State ex rel. Allison v Garver, 66 Ohio St. 555, 64 N.E. 573.
36. Commissioners of Roads and Revenues v Davis, 213 Ga. 792, 102 S.E.2d 180; Grayson-Robinson Stores, Inc. n Oneida, Ltd., 209 Ga. 613, 75 S.E.2d 161, cert den 346 U.S. 823, 98 L Ed. 348, 74 Ct. 39; Flournoy v First Nat. Bank, 197 La. 1067, 3 So. 2d 244; Clark v Grand Lodge, B. R. T., 328 Mo. 1084, 43 S.W.2d 404, 88 ALR 150; Cleveland v Watertown, 99 Misc. 66, 165 N.Y.S. 305, affd 179 App Div. 954, 166 N.Y.S. 286, revd 222 N.Y. 159, 118 N.E. 500; Atkinson v Southern Express Co., 94 SC 444, 78 S.E. 516.
37. A nullity needs no repeal. Nicol v Board of Education, 125 Misc. 678, 211 N.Y.S. 749.
38. Norton v Shelby Country, 118 U.S. 425, 30 L Ed. 178, 6 S Ct. 1211; Security Savings Bank v Connell, 198 Iowa 564, 200 N.W. 8, 36 ALR 486; Flournoy v First Nat. Bank, 197 La 1067, 3 So. 2d 244; Kesbec Inc. v Taylor, 253 App Div. 353, 2 N.Y.S.2d 241, mod on other grounds 278 N.Y. 293, 16 N.E.2d 136; Anderson v Lehmkuhl, 119 Neb. 451, 229 N.Y. 773; Daly v Beery, 45 N.D. 287, 178 N.W. 104; Henry County v Standard Oil Co., 167 Tenn. 485, 71 S.W.2d 683, 93 ALR 1483; State ex rel University of Utah v Candland, 36 Utah 406, 104 P 285.
39. Chicago I. & L. R. Co. v Hackett, 228 U.S. 559, 57 L Ed. 966, 33 S Ct. 581; ; Norton v Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 30 L Ed. 178, 6 S Ct. 1121; Hirsh v Block, 50 App D.C. 56, 267 F 614, 11 ALR 1238, cert den 254 U.S. 640, 65 L Ed 452, 41 S Ct. 13; Smith v Costello, 77 Idaho 205, 290 P2d 742, 56 ALR2d 1020; Security Sav. Bank v Connell, 198 Iowa 564, 200 N.W. 8, 36 ALR 486; Flournoy v First Nat. Bank, 197 La 1067, 3 So. 2d 244; Garden of Eden Drainage v Bartlett Rust Co., 330 Mo. 554, 50 S.W.2D 627, 84 ALR 1078; St. Louis v Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co., 317 Mo. 907, 296 S.W. 993, 54 ALR 1082; Watkins v Dodson, 159 Neb. 745, 68 M.W.2d 508; State ex rel. Charleston, C. & C. R. Co. v Whitesides, 30 SC 579, 9 S.E. 661; Kesbec, Inc. v Taylor, 253 App Div. 353, 2 N.Y.S.2d 241, mod on other grounds 278 N.Y. 293, 16 N.E.2d 288, 119 ALR 536, reh den 278 N.Y. 716, 17 N.E.2d 136; Henry County v Standard Oil Co., 167 Tenn. 485, 71 S.W.2d 683, 93ALR 1483.
Under Nebraska law an unconstitutional statute is an utter nullity, is void from the date of enactment, and is incapable of creating any rights. Propst v Board of Educational Lands & Funds (DC Neb.) 103 F Supp 457, app dismd 343 U.S. 937, 96 L Ed. 1344, 72 S Ct.769.
Compare Swift v Calnan, 102 Iowa 206, 71N.W. 233, holding that no right may be based upon an unconstitutional statute, part of its provisions may be considered in construing other provisions confessedly good, in arriving at the correct interpretation of the latter.
As to the effect of, and rights under, a judgment based upon an unconstitutional law, see 46 Am Jur 2d § 19; as to the res judicata effect of such judgment, see 46 Am Jur 2d, Judgments § 441.
will continue. Much, Much MUCH more from the supreme courts.
Kran
|
