Achenbach v. Kincaid

Decision Date25 February 1914
Citation25 Idaho 768,140 P. 529
PartiesHENRY ACHENBACH, Appellant, v. WILLIAM KINCAID, County Assessor of Ada County, Idaho, and WILLIAM HOWELL, AUGUST CARLSON and WM. BRIGGS, Constituting the Board of County Commissioners of Ada County, Respondents
CourtIdaho Supreme Court

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District for Ada County. Hon. Carl A. Davis, Judge.

Petition for writ of mandate to compel the board of county commissioners and county assessor of Ada county to assess all motor vehicles that escaped taxation for the year 1913, under the highway commission act. Demurrer to petition sustained by lower court. Judgment affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded to respondents.

Harry S. Kessler, for Appellant.

This purported amendment relating to property exempt from taxation does not comply with the constitution, sec. 18, art. 3.

The legislature, by the title of the highway commission act declared that they intended to amend sec. 1644, Rev. Codes.

"The declared purpose of a statute must be accepted as true unless such purpose be incompatible with its meaning and effect." (S. S. White Dental Mfg. Co. v Commonwealth, 212 Mass. 35, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 805, 98 N.E. 1056; Lewis' Sutherland Stat. Const., 2d ed., secs. 230, 231; Fletcher v. Prather, 102 Cal. 413, 36 P. 658; People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 481; Copland v. Pirie, 26 Wash. 481, 90 Am. St. 769, 67 P. 227.)

R. L. Givens, Prosecuting Attorney, Harry Keyser and E. P. Barnes, for Respondents.

"If all parts of the act have a natural connection and reasonably relate, directly or indirectly, to one general, legitimate subject of legislation, the act is not open to the objection of plurality of subjects." (State v. Doherty, 3 Idaho 384, 29 P. 855; State v. Dolan, 13 Idaho 693, 92 P. 995, 14 L. R. A., N. S., 1259; Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Bradley, 8 Idaho 310, 101 Am. St. 201, 68 P. 295; State v. Jones, 9 Idaho 693, 75 P. 819; Turner v. Coffin, 9 Idaho 338, 74 P. 962; Butler v. Lewiston, 11 Idaho 393, 83 P. 234; Kessler v. Fritchman, 21 Idaho 30, 119 P. 692; Shoshone Highway Dist. v. Anderson, 22 Idaho 109, 125 P. 219; In re Magnes' Estate, 32 Colo. 527, 77 P. 853.)

An act is not unconstitutional if the title is broader than the act. (Divet v. Richland Co., 8 N, D. 65, 76 N.W. 993.) Similar titles in the following cases were held to be sufficient: State v. Klectzen, 8 N.D. 286, 78 N.W. 984; Murphy v. Bondshu, 2 Cal.App. 249, 83 P. 278; Parks v. State, 159 Ind. 211, 64 N.E. 862, 59 L. R. A. 190; State v. Courtney, 27 Mont. 378, 71 P. 308; Shearer v. Board of Supervisors, 128 Mich. 552, 87 N.W. 789; State ex rel. Olson v. Board of Commissioners, 83 Minn. 65, 85 N.W. 830; Gage v. City of Chicago, 207 Ill. 56, 69 N.E. 588; Erickson v. Cass County, 11 N.D. 494, 92 N.W. 841; Samuelson v. State, 116 Tenn. 470, 115 Am. St. 805, 95 S.W. 1012. If the subject matter is within the scope of the title, the constitutional requirement is met. (State v. Tibbets, 52 Neb. 228, 66 Am. St. 492, 71 N.W. 990; State ex rel. Comstock v. Stewart, 52 Neb. 243, 71 N.W. 998; Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 5 S.Ct. 903, 29 L.Ed. 185; Bobel v. People, 173 Ill. 19, 64 Am. St. 70, 107, 50 N.E. 322; State ex rel. Griffith v. Newland, 37 Wash. 428, 79 P. 983.)

Similar automobile statutes upheld as constitutional. (Christy v. Elliott, 216 Ill. 31, 108 Am. St. 196, 74 N.E. 1035, 3 Ann. Cas. 487, 1 L. R. A., N. S., 215; Commonwealth v. Boyd, 188 Mass. 79, 108 Am. St. 464, 74 N.E. 255; People v. Schneider, 139 Mich. 673, 103 N.W. 172, 5 Ann. Cas. 790, 69 L. R. A. 345.)

Such reference as is made to sec. 1644 in the title of the highway commission act may be treated as surplusage. (1 Lewis' Sutherland Stat. Const., 2d ed., p. 448; Thomas v. State, 124 Ala. 48, 27 So. 315; Peed v. McCrary, 94 Ga. 487, 21 S.E. 232; Bagwell v. Lawrenceville, 94 Ga. 654, 21 S.E. 903.)

The power of the legislature is, within its sphere, unlimited except as restricted by the constitution. (Kingsbury v. Nye, 9 Cal.App. 574, 99 P. 985; State ex rel. Workman v. Goldthait, 172 Ind. 210, 87 N.E. 133, 19 Ann. Cas. 737; State ex rel. Caldwell v. Hooker, 22 Okla. 712, 98 P. 964; State ex rel. Peyton v. Cunningham, 39 Mont. 197, 103 P. 497, 18 Ann. Cas. 705; Ahern v. Elder, 195 N.Y. 493, 88 N.E. 1059; Straw v. Harris, 54 Ore. 424, 103 P. 777.)

"A state constitution, unlike a federal constitution, is one of limitation and not a grant of powers, and any act adopted by the legislature not prohibited by the state constitution is valid, and such inhibition must expressly or impliedly be made to appear beyond a reasonable doubt." (State v. Cochran, 55 Ore. 157, 104 P. 419, 105 P. 884; St. Joe Improvement Co. v. Laumierster, 19 Idaho 66, 112 P. 683; Walker v. City of Spokane, 62 Wash. 312, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 994, 113 P. 775; People ex rel. Simon v. Bradley, 207 N.Y. 592, 101 N.E. 766.)

"In passing on the constitutionality of a statute, every reasonable doubt as to its validity will be resolved in favor of sustaining the statute." (United States v. Seymour, 10 App. D. C. 294, affirmed; United States v. Duell, 172 U.S. 576, 19 S.Ct. 286, 43 L.Ed. 559; State v. Canfield, 40 Fla. 36, 23 So. 591, 42 L. R. A. 72; People v. Rose, 203 Ill. 46, 67 N.E. 746; Commonwealth v. Barney, 115 Ky. 475, 74 S.W. 181; State v. Thompson, 144 Mo. 314, 46 S.W. 191; Ex parte Loving, 178 Mo. 194, 77 S.W. 508; State v. Standard Oil Co., 61 Neb. 28, 87 Am. St. 449, 84 N.W. 413; Sugden v. Partridge, 174 N.Y. 87, 66 N.E. 655; reversing order, 78 A.D. 644, 80 N.Y.S. 1149; Bon Homme County v. Berndt, 15 S.D. 494, 90 N.W. 147; State v. Lewis, 26 Utah 120, 72 P. 388.)

"The court may not declare a statute void unless it is clearly so beyond any reasonable doubt." (State v. Joseph, 175 Ala. 579, 57 So. 942; People v. Elerding, 254 Ill. 579, 98 N.E. 982; Whitford v. Board of Commissioners, 159 N.C. 160, 74 S.E. 1014; Miller v. Henry, 62 Ore. 4, 124 P. 197, 199; Board of Trustees v. Outgamie County, 150 Wis. 244, 136 N.W. 619.)

J. H. Peterson, Attorney General, J. J. Guheen and T. C. Coffin, Assistants, Amici Curiae.

The proceedings of the constitutional convention taken in connection with the established rule that the legislature has absolute sovereign power of taxation save so far as restricted by the federal or state constitutions, leaves no doubt but that the legislature possesses authority to exempt automobiles from taxation if they see fit. (Proceedings Idaho Const. Convention, p. 1703 et seq.)

BUDGE, District Judge. Sullivan, J., concurs, AILSHIE, C. J., Concurring Specially.

OPINION

BUDGE, District Judge.

--On July 22, 1913, appellant filed in the district court of the third judicial district within and for Ada county, Idaho, his petition for an alternative writ of mandate to be directed, first, to William Howell, August Carlson and William Briggs, constituting the board of county commissioners of said Ada county, commanding them to enforce and compel an assessment of all property within said Ada county at a fair cash value, and in particular all automobiles, motorcycles and other motor vehicles that escaped taxation for the year 1913; and, second, to William Kincaid, county assessor of Ada county, requiring him to assess at a fair cash value and make due return on all taxable property of said county, particularly all automobiles, motorcycles and other motor vehicles that escaped taxation for the year 1913.

It is alleged in said petition that there were on the second Monday in January, 1913, and at the time of the filing of said petition about seven hundred automobiles, motorcycles and other motor vehicles within said Ada county, of the aggregate value of one million dollars; that the said assessor had failed, during the period fixed by law, or at all, to assess the same, and that said William Howell, August Carlson and William Briggs, sitting as a board of equalization of said county for the year 1913, had failed, neglected and refused to enforce and compel the assessment of said property by said assessor; that unless an assessment of said property for said year is made, appellant, who is a taxpayer of said county, will be compelled to pay an unjust and unfair proportion of taxes.

It is further alleged in said petition that respondents justify their failure to assess said property, or cause the same to be assessed, by reason of the provisions of sec. 19, chap. 179, Sess. Laws of 1913, p. 568, but it is alleged that said section is null and void, for the reason that it contravenes secs. 2, 4 and 5, art. 7, and secs. 16, 18 and 19, art. 3 of the constitution of this state.

A general demurrer was filed to the petition and by the trial court sustained. Appellant thereupon declined to plead further. Judgment was entered, dismissing the action and the case is here on appeal from said judgment.

The twelfth session of the legislature passed an act which was approved March 13, 1913, of which the following is the title:

"Creating a State Highway Commission, Prescribing Its Duties and Defining Its Powers: Authorizing the Employment by Said State Highway Commission of Convicts in the State Penitentiary on State Highways: Requiring the Registration With the Secretary of Said State Highway Commission of Motor Vehicles and of Dealers in, and Manufacturers of, Motor Vehicles, and Requiring the Payment of Annual Fees for Such Registration Creating a State Highway Fund and Appropriating the Moneys in Such Fund: Prescribing Rules and Regulations for Operating and Running Motor Vehicles on the Public Highways of the State: Defining the Powers of Counties, Cities and Incorporated Villages With Reference to Licensing and Regulating Motor Vehicles: Amending Section 1644 of the Revised Codes of Idaho Relating to Property Exempt from Taxation so as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • State v. Casselman, 7502
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • May 2, 1949
    ... ... consider statutes in pari materia and construe the two ... statutes together. Achenbach v. Kincaid, 25 Idaho ... 768, 775, 140 P. 529 (1914); Cook v. Massey, 38 ... Idaho 264, 271, 220 P. 1088, 35 A.L.R. 200 (1923) ... ...
  • Ada County v. Wright
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1939
    ... ... revenue except in so far as it is specifically [60 Idaho 405] ... limited by the constitution. ( Achenbach v. Kincaid, ... 25 Idaho 768, 781, 140 P. 529; In re Kessler, 26 ... Idaho 764, 770, 146 P. 113, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 228, L. R. A ... 1915D, 322; ... ...
  • Diefendorf v. Gallet
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • March 11, 1932
    ... ... taxation purposes is plenary and exclusive under our ... Constitution. ( Independent School Dist. v. Pfost, ... supra ; Achenbach v. Kincaid , 25 Idaho ... 768, 140 P. 529; In re Kessler, supra ; ... Idaho Power Co. v. Blomquist , 26 Idaho 222, [51 ... Idaho 636] Ann. Cas ... ...
  • Geo. B. Wallace, Inc. v. Pfost
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 18, 1937
    ... ... case there exists no reasonable ground for classification. ( ... Curtis v. Post, 53 Idaho 1, 21 P.2d 73; 42 C. J ... 666, sec. 81; Achenbach v. Kincaid, 25 Idaho 768, ... 140 P. 529; In re Kessler, 26 Idaho 764, 146 P. 113, ... Ann. Cas. 1917A, 228, L. R. A., 1915D, 322; J. C. Penney ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT