Barnett v. Siewert, 7914
| Decision Date | 11 July 1936 |
| Docket Number | 7914 |
| Parties | GEORGE BARNETT, Appellant, v. FRANK SIEWERT, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Minnehaha County, SD
#7914—Reversed
Tom Kirby, Sioux Falls, SD
Attorney for Appellant.
Denu, Philip & Leedom, Rapid City, SD
Attorneys for Respondents.
Opinion Filed Jul 11, 1936
This is an action brought for the purpose of enjoining the defendants from accepting, approving, or filing any bonds issued by the Company, West Mutual Insurance Corporation of Yankton, S.D., the intervener. The parties entered into a stipulation of facts which are concise and not lengthy, and we feel that certain portions of the stipulated facts will throw light on the matters in controversy. We quote certain excerpts from appellant’s brief:
“That the Central West Mutual Insurance Corporation of Yankton, South Dakota, the intervening defendant, is a corporation organized under and, by virtue of chapter 267 of the Session Laws of 1921, of the State of South Dakota, ... .
“That the defendants herein, Frank Siewert, Walter Conway and Joe V. Ryan, as members of the Liquor Control Commission, and Walter Conway as Attorney General of the State of South Dakota, are, under the provisions of chapter 134 of the Session Laws of 1935, charged with the duty of examining, passing upon, approving, or disapproving, all bonds required to be furnished under and by virtue of said law.
“That the defendants, Frank Siewert, Walter Conway and Joe V. Ryan, comprising the Liquor Control Commission of the State of South Dakota, and Walter Conway, Attorney General of the State of South Dakota, have threatened to and will, unless enjoined by the Court, examine, pass upon, approve and file, bonds required to be furnished by chapter 134 of the Session Laws of 1935, executed by the intervenor, Central West Mutual Insurance Corporation, of Yankton, South Dakota ... .”
Counsel in their briefs have pointed out certain law issues that they desire to have this court decide, which are as follows:
“Whether that part of chapter 134, of the Laws of 1935, which in effect, provides that the surety bonds required by said Act shall be written by ‘a corporate surety company which has com plied with the provisions of article 1, chapter 5, part 19, of title 6, of the South Dakota Revised Code for the year 1919,’ which bond shall be in a form to be approved by the Attorney General, is constitutional as regards the intervenor, Central West Mutual Insurance Corporation, of Yankton, South Dakota, or whether said provision of chapter 134, of the Session Laws of 1935, violates the rights of the intervenor under section 18, article 6, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, and section 1, of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
“Whether the Central West Mutual Insurance Corporation, of Yankton, South Dakota, by reason of its organization under chapter 267 of the Session Laws of 1921, of the State of South Dakota, is included within the provisions of article 1, chapter 5, part 19, of title 6, of the South Dakota Revised Code of 1919, and whether such inclusion is a substantial compliance under the provisions of chapter 134, of the Session Laws of 1935.
“Whether the title to chapter 134, of the Session Laws of 1935, ‘An Act Providing for the Manufacture, Sale and Distribution of Intoxicating Liquor, and for the Control and Supervision thereof, and Repealing Existing Laws in Conflict herewith, and Declaring an Emergency,’ is a sufficient designation by title to authorize that part of section 19, of chapter 134, of the Laws of 1935, which provides ‘Which said surety bond shall be written by a corporate surety company, which has complied with the provisions of Article 1, Chapter 5, Part 19, of Title 6, of the South Dakota Revised Code for the year 1919,’ or whether such provision in said section 19 is an attempt to legislate and regulate companies issuing surety bonds, and is therefore in violation of section 21 of article 3, of the State Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
The trial court made findings and conclusions and a judgment in favor of the defendants and intervener. Appellant has appealed from the judgment entered therein and the order denying motion for a new trial. (Intervening respondent is alone in filing a written brief and arguing orally in this court.)
The title of the act chapter 134 of the Session Laws of 1935 is attacked because there is no reference to the surety bonds and the requirements thereof in the title of the act. The title reads, “An Act Entitled, An Act Providing for the Manufacture, Sale and Distribution of Intoxicating Liquor, and For the Control and Supervision Thereof, and Repealing Existing Laws in Conflict Herewith, and Declaring an Emergency.” The title seems quite broad, and if the Legislature had authority to require a license and the posting of a bond, it seems fair to say that it would have authority to include a provision in the body of the act as to who might act as surety. That the Legislature had such power seems quite plain because of the language therein contained, “for the Control and Supervision,” (of intoxicating liquor). An examination of the body of the act in conjunction with the title leads us to believe that the title is sufficient and that the Legislature by said act did not intend to and is not attempting to legislate or regulate companies issuing surety bonds, but merely exercised, their prerogative in stating who might be accepted as a surety on liquor license bonds.
Chapter 134, Laws of 1935, is also attacked upon the grounds that it makes an unconstitutional discrimination amongst surety companies. The intervening respondent contends that section 19 of chapter 134, Laws of 1935, was in violation of the constitutional rights of respondent guaranteed by section 18, of article 6, of the Constitution of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial