State of Arkansas vs. Little Rock, Mississippi River and Texas R'y Co.
settle it. It is the evidence of the action of the house, and by it the act must stand or fall."
The bill was enrolled, signed by the speaker of the house and president of the senate, and approved by the governor. It was passed in 1857, had been on the statute book thirteen years, and under it, the inhabitants of South Ottawa voted to subscribe stock to the railroad company, and authorized the issuance of bonds to pay its subscription. The journals did not show that the act had passed.
It was held that the journals might be used as evidence to prove this fact, and the bonds were held to be void, even in the hands of innocent purchasers.
In the case before us, it affirmatively appears that the bill passed three readings, in the house, in one day, and on the same day was passed in the senate, and on the next day received the approval of the governor.
This is a strong case, and leaves no margin for presumption in favor of the regularity of the proceedings. It is much stronger than that of English v. Oliver, reported in 28 Ark. Rep., 6. 320, in which it was held that presumption of the regularity of the proceedings might be indulged where nothing to the contrary appeared. Whilst in this case, no presumption in favor of the regularity of the proceedings can be indulged, as the question is one of no ordinary importance, and as we may well rely upon the other ground of objection, with regard to which the authorities are clear, we will decline to express any positive opinion with regard to the invalidity of the act of the legislature, because not read the number of times, on different days, as required by the Constitution.
It is next argued by counsel for plaintiff, that the railroad company, having received the bonds and disposed of them, is estopped from denying their validity.
