Representative

One who represents or is in the place of another. In the law of decedents’ estates any person who has succeeded to the rights of the decedent, whether by purchase, descent, or operation of law.

Kroh v. Ileins, 48 Neb. 691, 67 N. W. 771.

A representative of a deceased person, sometimes called a “personal representative,” or “legal personal representative,” is one who is executor or administrator of the person described.

6 Madd. 159; 5 Ves. 402. See Cox v. Curwen, 118 Mass. 200; Lodge v. Weld, 139 Mass. 504, 2 N. E. 95.

A gift in a will to the “representative” of a person is a gift to his legal personal representatives, in the absence of any context in the will showing that the word is to have a different meaning; 45 Ch. Div. 269. In legislation, it signifies one who/ has been elected a member of that branch of the legislature called the house of representatives. The securing of fair apportionment of representatives in legislative bodies is one of the most serious problems in modern constitutional law, there being no subject as to which the legislation is more frequently affected by partisan bias. In many of the states there has been an effort to control the matter by constitutional provisions under which it is usually required that the districts shall be formed of contiguous territory and contain as nearly as possible an equal number of inhabitants. These are the principal provisions in the constitution of Illinois, in which state it was held that an apportionment act was valid which was a substantial compliance with the constitution, though the rule of compactness was only applied to a limited extent; People v. Thompson, 155 111.

451, 40 N. E. 307.

The subject has been very carefully considered in Indiana. Among the conclusions reached there are: that under the state constitution requiring a sexennial enumeration of the male inhabitants over twenty-one years and an apportionment at the next legislative session thereafter, the legislature, having once made a valid apportionment after an enumeration, is prohibited from making a reapportionment and from repealing such valid apportionment during the enumeration period; that if the first apportionment is invalid, even before it has been declared so by the courts, a second may be passed; that the question of the validity of such a law is not a political one. to be determined only at the discretion of the legislature, but that it is entirely within the jurisdiction of the courts to determine its constitutionality; that where the question of constitutionality has been determined by a lower court in an action between the citizens, and an appeal is dismissed, the subject is not res judicata as against the state; and that the state is not estopped from objecting to the constitutionality of an apportionment by the fact that a legislature has been elected under an unconstitutional act; Board of Com’rs of Huntington Co. v. Ileaston, 144 Ind. 593, 41 N. E. 457, 43 N. E. 651, 55 Am. St. Rep. 192. In New Jersey It was held that the constitutionality of such acts is a subject of judicial inquiry and not a mere political question, but that the courts cannot overturn a law passed within constitutional limitations on the ground that it is unwise, impolitic, unjust, or oppressive, or even that It was procured by corporate means; State v. Wrightson, 56 N. J. L. 126, 28 Atl. 56, 22