Grable v. Childers
Decision Date | 24 March 1936 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 26401 |
Citation | 1936 OK 273,176 Okla. 360,56 P.2d 357 |
Parties | GRABLE v. CHILDERS |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. STATUTES - Law Applying Uniformly to Small Class of Persons a "General Law."
A statute which by reason of the subject to which it relates may have a direct effect upon a relatively small number of persons is nevertheless a general law if it operates equally and uniformly upon all brought within the relations and circumstances for which it provides.
2. STATUTES - Acts Declared Invalid Only When Clearly Unconstitutional.
It is only where an act of the Legislature is clearly palpably, and plainly inconsistent with the terms and provisions of the Constitution that the courts will interfere and declare such an act invalid and void. Protest of Downing, 164 Okla. 181, 23 P.2d 173.
3. STATES - Power of State to Require Portion of Salaries of State Officers and Employees to Be Applied on Obligations Respecting State Trust Funds.
The state may as a matter of public policy require its employees to perform their obligations respecting trust funds of the state, and in the event of any delinquency on account thereof to require portion of the salaries paid by the state to such employees to be applied in extinguishment of such delinquency.
4. SAME - STATUTES - Act Requiring Percentage of Salaries of State Officers and Employees to Be Applied on Delinquent Loans Secured From Trust Funds of State Land Office Held General and not Special Law.
Chapter 188, Session Laws 1933, authorizing and directing the State, Auditor under certain circumstances to withhold and apply 25 per cent. of the salary of the state employees who are delinquent in respect to their obligations to the trust funds under the control and management of the land office violates neither section 46 nor section 59, art. 5, of the Constitution of Oklahoma.
5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Due Process of Law.
By due process of law is meant the enforcement of right or prevention of wrong before a legally constituted tribunal having jurisdiction over the class of cases to which the one in question belongs, with notice to the party upon whom the law exhausts itself or upon whose property rights it operates, with an opportunity to appear and be heard in his own defense. Wilhite v. Cruce, 70 Okla. 70, 172 P. 962.
6. SAME - Act Requiring Percentage of Salaries of State Officers and Employees to Be Applied on Delinquent Loans Secured From Trust Funds of State Land Office - Provisions for Notice, Hearing, and Appeal Held to Constitute Due Process of Law.
Provision for notice, hearing and appeal contained in chapter 188, Session Laws 1933, provides due process of law in accordance with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution (sec. 1) and section 7, art. 2, of the state Constitution.
7. MANDAMUS - Failure to Show Clear Legal Right to Writ.
Mandamus is properly denied where plaintiff fails to show a clear legal right thereto.
Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Lucius Babcock and Sam Hooker, Judges.
Action for peremptory writ of mandamus brought by Mrs. Wilma Grable against C.C. Childers, State Auditor. From an order overruling demurrer to the answer and return to alternative writ and denying the peremptory writ, plaintiff appeals. Judgment affirmed.
S.P. Freeling, for plaintiff in error.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
¶1 This action was instituted in the district court of Oklahoma county by Mrs. Wilma Grable, as plaintiff, against C.C. Childers, State Auditor, as defendant, applying for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel said defendant to issue and deliver to said plaintiff a state warrant in full of her salary as a state employee.
¶2 It is conceded that the answer and return of the defendant to the alternative writ correctly states the facts. In said answer and return defendant admits that the plaintiff was an employee of the state of Oklahoma; that she had earned $27 during the month of April, 1935, as an employee of the state of Oklahoma; that she had filed a claim for this amount and that the same had been allowed in full; that defendant had paid to plaintiff the sum of $20.75, and had delivered to the Commissioners of the School Land Office a warrant for $6.75, the balance due under said claim; that said payments were made in accordance with the provisions of chapter 188, Session Laws 1933. Defendant further alleged that plaintiff had previously procured a loan out of said school funds of the state of Oklahoma from the Commissioners of the Land Office, and was delinquent with respect to the interest and principal thereon; that notice had been served upon the plaintiff by registered mail.
¶3 On September 21, 1933, as required by section 3 of said chapter 188, supra, thereunder, plaintiff was directed to show legal cause, if any she had, why 25 per cent. of her future salary warrants should not be applied as they accrued upon her delinquent account with the Commissioners of the Land Office. That plaintiff neglected to make any showing to this effect, and that an order was thereupon entered by the defendant, as provided by said act, to the effect that thereafter 25 per cent. of plaintiff's salary should be applied, beginning with the month of October, 1933, to the extinguishment of plaintiff's delinquency as aforesaid. Defendant further alleged that plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law by reason of the provisions of chapter 188, supra, and asked that the peremptory writ be denied. Demurrer of the plaintiff to said answer and return was overruled, and plaintiff elected to stand on her petition. The writ of mandamus was denied and the plaintiff now appeals. The parties occupy the same position in this court as they did in the trial court and will hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendant. The sole question presented for our determination is the constitutionality of chapter 188, Session Laws 1933, which, omitting the title, reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Macy v. BD. OF COM'RS
... ... Lowden, 189 Okla. 286, 116 P.2d 700, 703 (1941), (a law may be general and yet have only one local application); Grable v. Childers, 176 Okla. 360, 56 P.2d 357 (1936), (the syllabus by the Court states that a general law may have an impact upon a relatively small ... ...
-
City of Enid v. Perb
... ... upon every locality in the state, "but must apply equally to all classes similarly situated, and apply to like conditions and subjects." Grable v. Childers, 1936 OK 273, ¶ 6, 56 P.2d 357, 360. A special law relates to "a part of the entire class of similarly affected persons" and ... ...
-
Graham v. D&K Oilfield Servs., Inc.
... ... City of Enid , 2006 OK 16, 8, 133 P.3d 281 ; Grable v. Childers , 1936 OK 273, 6, 176 Okla. 360, 56 P.2d 357. A special law, on the other hand, relates to a part of the entire class of similarly ... ...
-
Board of Barber Examiners of Louisiana v. Parker
... ... 7 Am. Jur., 613-615 (1937); Nation v ... Chism, 154 Okl. 50, 6 P.2d 766; Peters v ... State, 56 Okl.Cr. 95, 34 P.2d 286; Grable v ... Childers, 176 Okl. 360, 56 P.2d 357 ... The ... Legislature of the State of Louisiana has passed regulatory ... statutes, Act ... ...