Barlow v. Jones, Civil 2952

• Decision Date: 30 December 1930
• Docket Number: Civil 2952
• Citation: 37 Ariz. 396,294 P. 1106
• Parties: D. B. BARLOW, Appellant, v. A. F. JONES, T. E. McCULLOGH and L. B. HART, as the Duly Appointed, Qualified and Acting Commissioners of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, THE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION, and R. L. BAYLESS, as Arizona State Game and Fish Warden, Appellees
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

294 P. 1106

37 Ariz. 396

D. B. BARLOW, Appellant, v. A. F. JONES, T. E. McCULLOGH and L. B. HART, as the Duly Appointed, Qualified and Acting Commissioners of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, THE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION, and R. L. BAYLESS, as Arizona State Game and Fish Warden, Appellees

Civil No. 2952

Supreme Court of Arizona

December 30, 1930

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. M. T. Phelps, Judge. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Mr. J C. Wilson, for Appellant.

Messrs Holzworth, McNabb & Phillips, for Appellees.

OPINION

ROSS, J.

The state game and fish warden issued to the appellant, D. B Barlow, a class B license for the year 1930. A controversy arose between appellant and the warden as to whether such license authorized appellant to take only fish or both fish and small game. Instead of asserting his rights as he viewed them by inviting arrest, appellant brought this action against the appellees, the Arizona game and fish commission and the warden, under the provisions of the declaratory judgments statute (article 12, chap. 93, §§ 4385-4390, Rev. Code 1928), to have his rights determined by the courts. Judgment went against appellant, and he has brought the matter here for review. No question is made of the remedy.

Chapter 84, Laws of 1929, relating to the preservation of the state's game and fish, provides for an open season and a closed season, and the taking of game and fish in the open season by those persons holding licenses. Section 23 of said chapter classifies the licenses, states what may be taken under each class, and fixes the fees to be paid therefor. That section reads as follows:

"Licenses shall be divided into classes and fees paid therefor as follows: Class A, resident general hunting and fishing license, two dollars and fifty cents; class B, resident fishing license, one dollar and twenty-five cents; class C, resident trapping license, three dollars and fifty cents; class D, non-resident general hunting and fishing license, thirty-five dollars; class E, non-resident fish and small game license, ten dollars; class F, non-resident special fishing license, two dollars and fifty cents, valid for fifteen days from date of issue; class G, non-resident trapping license, twenty-five dollars; class H, alien general hunting and fishing license, seventy-five dollars; class I, alien fish and small game license, thirty dollars; class J, special license, alien applicant for citizenship, for general hunting, twenty-five dollars; class K, special license, alien applicant for citizenship, fishing and small game, ten dollars. Classes A, D, H and J include all varieties of fish and game; classes B, E, I, and K include all fish and small game; classes C and G include all varieties of predatory and fur bearing animals; and class F includes all kinds of fish that may be taken under this act. . . . " (The two phrases directly involved we emphasize by italics.)

Appellant's license, as before stated, was a class B. It will be noticed that section 23 is divided into two sentences. The first sentence classifies and describes the licenses; the second sentence prescribes what may be taken by the licensee. Because in class B the license is...