almost universal rule in Indiana

1972Cas. 1914B, 916; Gray v. Childs, 115 Fla. 816 , 156 So. 274 ), this Court has recognized the almost universal rule that once an amendment is duly proposed and is actually published and submitted to a vote of the people and by them adopted without any question having been raised prior to the election as to the method by which the amendment gets before them, the effect of a favorable vote by the people is to cure defects in the form of submission. . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) Sylvester v. Tindall (1944), 154 Fla. 663 , 18 So. 2d 892, at p. 895 .

1972Cas. 1914B, 916; Gray v. Childs, 115 Fla. 816 , 156 So. 274 ), this Court has recognized the almost universal rule that once an amendment is duly proposed and is actually published and submitted to a vote of the people and by them adopted without any question having been raised prior to the election as to the method by which the amendment gets before them, the effect of a favorable vote by the people is to cure defects in the form of submission. . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) Sylvester v. Tindall (1944), 154 Fla. 663 , 18 So. 2d 892, at p. 895 .

1972Cas. 1914B, 916; Gray v. Childs, 115 Fla. 816 , 156 So. 274 ), this Court has recognized the almost universal rule that once an amendment is duly proposed and is actually published and submitted to a vote of the people and by them adopted without any question having been raised prior to the election as to the method by which the amendment gets before them, the effect of a favorable vote by the people is to cure defects in the form of submission. . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) Sylvester v. Tindall (1944), 154 Fla. 663 , 18 So. 2d 892, at p. 895 .

1972Cas. 1914B, 916; Gray v. Childs, 115 Fla. 816 , 156 So. 274 ), this Court has recognized the almost universal rule that once an amendment is duly proposed and is actually published and submitted to a vote of the people and by them adopted without any question having been raised prior to the election as to the method by which the amendment gets before them, the effect of a favorable vote by the people is to cure defects in the form of submission. . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) Sylvester v. Tindall (1944), 154 Fla. 663 , 18 So. 2d 892, at p. 895 .

1971We have read the Denny and Fox cases carefully, and under the particular facts then before the court, the reasoning announced seems to be sound, but we are not inclined to extend but to treat the doctrine followed in those cases as an exception to the almost universal rule that legislative power is limited only by the express inhibitions of the Constitution.” State ex rel. v. Morris, Mayor (1927), 199 Ind. 78, 88 , 155 N. E. 198, 202 .

1971We have read the Denny and Fox cases carefully, and under the particular facts then before the court, the reasoning announced seems to be sound, but we are not inclined to extend but to treat the doctrine followed in those cases as an exception to the almost universal rule that legislative power is limited only by the express inhibitions of the Constitution.” State ex rel. v. Morris, Mayor (1927), 199 Ind. 78, 88 , 155 N. E. 198, 202 .

1971XVII is mandatory and should be followed (Crawford v. Gilchrist, 64 Fla. 41 , 59 So. 963 , Ann.Cas. 1914B, 916; Gray v. Childs, 115 Fla. 816 , 156 So. 274 ), this Court has recognized the almost universal rule that once an amendment is duly proposed and is actually published and submitted to a vote of the people and by them adopted without any question having been raised prior to the election as to the method by which the amendment gets before them, the effect of a favorable vote by the people is to cure defects in the form of submission. * * *" (Emphasis supplied.) Sylvester v. Tindall, (1944

1971XVII is mandatory and should be followed (Crawford v. Gilchrist, 64 Fla. 41 , 59 So. 963 , Ann.Cas. 1914B, 916; Gray v. Childs, 115 Fla. 816 , 156 So. 274 ), this Court has recognized the almost universal rule that once an amendment is duly proposed and is actually published and submitted to a vote of the people and by them adopted without any question having been raised prior to the election as to the method by which the amendment gets before them, the effect of a favorable vote by the people is to cure defects in the form of submission. * * *" (Emphasis supplied.) Sylvester v. Tindall, (1944

1933In the case of Ebner, Administrator v. Ohio State Life Insurance Company (1918), 69 Ind. App. 32 , 121 N. E. 315 , the court said, “We conclude that under proper circumstances an insurance company, after the loss has occurred, may proceed by affirmative action to avoid the policy, provided it takes proper steps to that end within the period named in the uncontestability clause.” In the case of Indiana National Life Insurance Company v. *120 McGinnis (1913), 180 Ind. 9 , 101 N. E. 289 , the court collected together a large number of authorities in this country supporting the almost universal ru

1933In the case of Ebner, Administrator v. Ohio State Life Insurance Company (1918), 69 Ind. App. 32 , 121 N. E. 315 , the court said, “We conclude that under proper circumstances an insurance company, after the loss has occurred, may proceed by affirmative action to avoid the policy, provided it takes proper steps to that end within the period named in the uncontestability clause.” In the case of Indiana National Life Insurance Company v. *120 McGinnis (1913), 180 Ind. 9 , 101 N. E. 289 , the court collected together a large number of authorities in this country supporting the almost universal ru

1933In the case of Ebner, Administrator v. Ohio State Life Insurance Company (1918), 69 Ind. App. 32 , 121 N. E. 315 , the court said, “We conclude that under proper circumstances an insurance company, after the loss has occurred, may proceed by affirmative action to avoid the policy, provided it takes proper steps to that end within the period named in the uncontestability clause.” In the case of Indiana National Life Insurance Company v. *120 McGinnis (1913), 180 Ind. 9 , 101 N. E. 289 , the court collected together a large number of authorities in this country supporting the almost universal ru

1933In the case of Ebner, Administrator v. Ohio State Life Insurance Company (1918), 69 Ind. App. 32 , 121 N. E. 315 , the court said, “We conclude that under proper circumstances an insurance company, after the loss has occurred, may proceed by affirmative action to avoid the policy, provided it takes proper steps to that end within the period named in the uncontestability clause.” In the case of Indiana National Life Insurance Company v. *120 McGinnis (1913), 180 Ind. 9 , 101 N. E. 289 , the court collected together a large number of authorities in this country supporting the almost universal ru

1929In addition to the authorities cited in the Hantz case, the rule was declared and followed in MacDaniel v. United States (1928), 24 Fed. (2d) 303; Armstrong v. United States (1926), 16 Fed. (2d) 62; Id., 273 U. S. 766 , 47 Sup. Ct. 571, 71 L.

1929While no hard and fast rule has been adopted, the almost universal rule is that the court, will not, after the actual commencement of the trial by the introduction of evidence, entertain such a motion, except where knowledge of the possession of the evidence by the prosecution, was first learned by the defendant during the introduction of the evidence, as happened in Gouled v. United States (1921), 255 U. S. 298 , 65 L.

1929While no hard and fast rule has been adopted, the almost universal rule is that the court, will not, after the actual commencement of the trial by the introduction of evidence, entertain such a motion, except where knowledge of the possession of the evidence by the prosecution, was first learned by the defendant during the introduction of the evidence, as happened in Gouled v. United States (1921), 255 U. S. 298 , 65 L.

1929Ed. 647 ; Youman v. Commonwealth (1920), 189 Ky. 152 , 224 S. W. 860 , 13 A. L.

1929Ed. 647 ; Youman v. Commonwealth (1920), 189 Ky. 152 , 224 S. W. 860 , 13 A. L.

1929In addition to the authorities cited in the Hantz case, the rule was declared and followed in MacDaniel v. United States (1928), 24 Fed. (2d) 303; Armstrong v. United States (1926), 16 Fed. (2d) 62; Id., 273 U. S. 766 , 47 Sup. Ct. 571, 71 L.