Anderson v. Board of Com'rs of Douglas County

• Decision Date: 01 December 1919
• Docket Number: 9212.
• Citation: 67 Colo. 403,186 P. 284
• Parties: ANDERSON, County Judge, v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF DOUGLAS COUNTY.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

186 P. 284

67 Colo. 403

ANDERSON, County Judge, v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF DOUGLAS COUNTY.

No. 9212.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

December 1, 1919

On Petition for Rehearing, January 5, 1920.

Error to District Court, Douglas County; J. W. Sheafor, Judge.

Action by John Anderson, County Judge of Douglas County, against the Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

William Dillon, of Castle Rock, for plaintiff in error.

Harold A. Senter, of Parker, and L. W. Cunningham, of Colorado Springs, for defendant in error.

James W. McCreery, Donald C. McCreery, and Delph E. Carpenter, all of Greeley, amici curiae.

TELLER J.

Plaintiff in error brought an action against the defendants in error to recover what he claimed to be a balance of salary due him for services as county judge. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and judgment entered accordingly. The case is now here for review upon the ruling on the demurrer.

Plaintiff in error was allowed a salary in accordance with the provisions of chapter 55 of the Laws of 1913. He claims that said law is invalid because, as he asserts, it attempted to amend section 1 of the act approved April 6, 1891 (Laws 1891 p. 307), which said section had been repealed by chapter 88 of the Laws of 1905, by which he claims his compensation is fixed. In reply to counsel's claim that the act of 1913 is void for the reasons above stated, the defendants urge that, although it purported to amend a section of an act repealed by implication, nevertheless it may stand as an independent statute.

Plaintiff in error relies upon Wall v. Garrison, 11 Colo. 515, 19 P 469, which holds that an attempted amendment of a section of a statute which has been repealed is void. That case however, is not determinative of the question here presented. The act there under consideration is entitled:

'An act to amend chapter 59 of the General Laws, and to repeal all laws inconsistent therewith.' Laws 1881, p. 176.

The act of 1913 here in question is entitled:

'An act to amend section 1 of an act entitled 'An act to provide for the payment of salaries to certain officers, to provide for the disposition of certain fees, and to repeal all acts inconsistent herewith,' approved April 6, 1891, and to repeal all acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith.'

It is urged that this title is obnoxious to article 5, § 21, of the Constitution, in that it does not clearly express the subject of the legislation. In Wall v. Garrison, supra, this court held that the act could not stand because of the insufficiency of its title. It will be observed that there no one is advised, by the title, of the real subject of the legislation. Resort must be had to chapter 59 of the General Laws to ascertain the subject.

Here, however, the title of the amended act is recited and advises every one of the subject of legislation. The rule is that where an act deals with a subject at large and expresses clearly the purpose of the Legislature in the enactment, it must be upheld. People v. Board of Canvassers, 143 N.Y. 84, 37 N.E. 649.

In Colorado F. & L. S. Co. v. Beerbohm, 43 Colo. 464, 96 P. 443, this court had under consideration the question of the sufficiency of a title of an act of the Legislature. The title there involved recited the title of the act which was amended. This court sustained the amended act, holding that the requirement of the Constitution is met if the title to the original act is----

'sufficient to embrace the matters covered by the provisions of the amendatory act; in other words, the amendment is valid if it is germane to the title of the original act.'

In the case of In re Breene, 14 Colo. 401, 24 P. 3, this court held that the constitutional provision here in question----

'should be liberally and reasonably interpreted, so as to avert the evils against which it is aimed, and at the same time avoid unnecessarily obstructing legislation.'

Under the rule of construction thus laid down, we are required to sustain the law of 1913, if the purpose of its enactment is reasonably clear...