explaining that drainage districts, as quasi-municipal corporations, were not intended to be included -within the ambit of the home rule amendment
How later courts described this case
- explaining that drainage districts, as quasi-municipal corporations, were not intended to be included -within the ambit of the home rule amendment
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Prewitt, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the above well reasoned opinion and feel that this majority opinion places the decision in the case on the proper ground, that is, by application of the rule of elision. I feel that the 1957 amendment would have been passed if the referendum features were not included and this would justify us in treating this provision as surplusage.
However, I do want to make it clear that in my opinion under the broad terms of Chapter 176 of the Private Acts 1945, this district should he treated as a municipal or quasi municipal corporation, for the purpose of Article 11, Section 9 of the Constitution.