Black v. Geissler
| Decision Date | 12 September 1916 |
| Docket Number | 8421. |
| Citation | 159 P. 1124,58 Okla. 335,1916 OK 773 |
| Parties | BLACK ET AL. v. GEISSLER ET AL. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The Supreme Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature, nor of any of its provisions, until there is presented a proper case in which it is made to appear that the person complaining by reason thereof has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which he was lawfully entitled or who is about to be subjected to some of its burdens or penalties.
Section 4881, Revised Laws 1910, which authorized the issuance of an injunction to restrain the illegal levy and collection of a tax, has been modified in respect to matters of taxation by section 7 of chapter 107, Session Laws 1915, where an effectual remedy has been provided in such cases.
It was within the power of the Legislature to enact said section 7 and the remedy therein provided is plain, speedy, and adequate, and is exclusive.
By section 1, c. 117, Session Laws 1915, p. 205, any person aggrieved at the action of the board of county commissioners in allowing and ordering paid any claim against the county may appeal from the decision of the county commissioners to the district court upon filing a bond as therein required and such remedy is plain, speedy, and adequate, and equitable relief by injunction against the apprehended action of the commissioners in the premises cannot be had.
Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; Edward Dewes Oldfield Judge.
Suit by Arthur H. Geissler against R. W. Black, and others. A demurrer to the petition was overruled, and certain defendants bring error. Reversed, and cause dismissed.
S. P Freeling, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiffs in error.
Parker & Simons, of Enid, for defendants in error.
Arthur M. Geissler filed suit in the district court of Oklahoma county seeking an injunction against the board of county commissioners, the members of the excise board, the county assessor, the county treasurer, and county registrar seeking to restrain them from performing certain acts devolved upon them by chapter 24, Session Laws 1916, p. 33, commonly known as the "Registration Law." Defendants filed demurrer to the petition, which was overruled, and defendants bring error.
The petition alleged that plaintiff was a resident, citizen, and taxpayer of Oklahoma county, and, after setting out the names of the defendants and the offices respectively filled by them, alleged that the board of county commissioners, unless restrained, would allow and pay out large sums of money upon the order of the county registrar for supplies furnished upon his order for carrying into effect the provisions of said act, and would incur additional expense and let other contracts for supplies, and that the county excise board would include same in the estimate for taxes of the county, which taxes would be collected by the county treasurer--all of which would be done without any authority of law.
The power of the Legislature to enact laws requiring the registration of voters is frankly conceded, as it well may be, for it is expressly conferred by section 6, art. 3 (section 48, Wms. Ann.) Constitution, and was upheld in Pond Creek v. Haskell, 21 Okl. 711, 97 P. 338; but the plaintiff seeks to have said act declared unconstitutional because its operation in the enforcement thereof would offend in various particulars against the provisions of both the state and federal Constitution. Plaintiff does not show that he will be affected in any way by the act, except that he will be required to pay the tax that would result from the enforcement thereof, and urges that, notwithstanding he has not been deprived of his right of suffrage, nor said right been interfered with, his interest as a taxpayer authorizes him to challenge the validity of the entire legislation.
In Insurance Co. of North America v. Welch, 154 P. 48, it was said:
"This court will not pass upon the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature nor of any of its provisions until there is presented a proper case in which it is made to appear that the person complaining is entitled to the benefits of said act or about to be subjected to some of its burdens or penalties."
In Wiley v. Sinkler et al., 179 U.S. 58, 21 S.Ct. 17, 45 L.Ed. 84, the Supreme Court had under consideration the right of a voter to question the constitutionality of a state law requiring registration as a prerequisite to the right to vote. The plaintiff had brought an action in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of South Carolina against the board of managers of a general election at a ward and precinct of the city of Charleston to recover damages for wrongfully and willfully rejecting his vote for a member of the House of Representatives of the United States for the state of South Carolina, and the court held that, without an allegation that plaintiff had registered under the law, his petition did not state a cause of action, and that because it was not alleged that he was ever registered, or ever made any application to be registered, and, so far as appeared, might have been entitled to apply for registration, the plaintiff was not in a position to impugn the constitutionality of the act upon the grounds urged, which were that it required a longer residence in the county than was required by the Constitution of the state, and otherwise unreasonably impeded the exercise of the constitutional right of voting.
The rule announced in the above decisions is one of sound public policy, and is supported by cogent reasons. Litigants who appeal to the courts should have a personal interest in the question involved, and be entitled to the benefits of any decree that may be rendered therein, or subject to its burdens, and especially in matters of public interest affecting the state at large, where the Legislature seeks to declare a rule of public policy before the enforcement of such a law is enjoined, there should be presented a case involving the very question which it is sought to have adjudicated by some person who has been denied some benefit or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled, or who is about to be subjected to some of its burdens or penalties, and in which upon the rendition of judgment actual relief may be awarded. If the rule were otherwise, parties having no personal interest in such questions could appeal to the courts and interfere with the enforcement of every measure of public interest because of some objection thereto, although not personally affected thereby. The classes of persons who are said to be affected by the act are not complaining in this proceeding, and plaintiff's right, if he has such, must then depend upon his interest as a taxpayer.
Section 4881, Revised Laws 1910, authorized the issuance of an injunction to restrain the illegal levy and collection of a tax, and this right was recognized by the territorial Supreme Court in the case of Kellogg v. School Dist., 13 Okl. 285, 74 P. 110, and has been recognized by this court in the case of Weatherford Mill. Co. v. Duncan, 42 Okl. 242, 140 P. 1184.
Plaintiff therefore says that under this statute and the decisions cited his right to maintain this action is established, and this contention is sound if section 4881 has not been modified by subsequent legislation. At the regular session of the Legislature of 1915 there was passed an act amending the tax laws of the state, and this act is found as chapter 107, Session Laws 1915, where the Legislature, in addition to prescribing remedies by appeal from the action of the assessor in making the assessment or the equalization as made by the county board of equalization, and making provision for an appeal from the action of the state board of equalization, further provided by section 7 of said act as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial