Board of Revenue of Jefferson County v. Kayser

Decision Date03 February 1921
Docket Number6 Div. 160
Citation205 Ala. 289,88 So. 19
PartiesBOARD OF REVENUE OF JEFFERSON COUNTY et al. v. KAYSER.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Dan A. Greene, Judge.

Bill by the Board of Revenue of Jefferson County and others, against Leo Kayser seeking to have certain warrants canceled, and held not to constitute a valid claim against the county or its funds. From a decree sustaining demurrers to the bill complainants appeal. Affirmed.

Huey &amp Welch, of Bessemer, for appellants.

Tillman Bradley & Morrow, of Birmingham, for appellee.

SAYRE J.

Appellant contends that the act of September 10, 1915, entitled "An act to provide for the payment and retirement of claims against the fine and forfeiture fund of Jefferson county" (Local Acts 1915, p. 360), is unconstitutional for the reason that it violates one or more of sections 45, 96, and 105 of the Constitution.

Section 45, or so much thereof as is pertinent, provides that--

"Each law shall contain but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title."

The act under consideration provides for the payment, at the discretion of the board of revenue of Jefferson county, of claims against the fine and forfeiture fund out of the general treasury of the county. Sanders v. Commissioners' Court of Elmore County, 117 Ala. 543, 23 So. 788, is cited as authority for appellant's contention. We do not perceive any very clear reason why the court in that case, called upon to adjudicate the vitality of the statute, should have first mutilated its title by extirpating its second clause, but so the court did, and then, conceding that the Legislature might make claims against the fine and forfeiture fund a charge upon the general fund of the county, held that such a charge could not be made under the title of "An act to regulate the fine and forfeiture fund." Laws 1894-95, p. 731. We have quoted the title of the act here involved. It has been frequently held that generality and comprehensiveness in the title of an act is no objection to it, so long as such quality is not made a cover for legislation incongruous in itself, and by no fair intendment connected with and cognate to the subject expressed in the title. Cases cited to section 45, Mayfield's Constitution. The court is of opinion that a provision for payment out of the county treasury is connected with and cognate to a provision for the payment and retirement of claims against the fine and forfeiture fund of the county, and so holds the act free from this objection.

Section 96 is as follows:

"The Legislature shall not enact any law not applicable to all the counties in the state, regulating costs and charges of courts, or fees, commissions or allowances of public officers."

This section of the Constitution (now in part repealed as to Jefferson county) merely requires uniformity in costs and charges of courts, and in fees, commissions, or allowances paid to public officers. It has no relation to or bearing upon the method of paying charges against the fine and forfeiture fund. As matter of well-known fact, claims against that fund have never been realized equally, and probably will never be as long as the fund is to be collected from fines and forfeitures in the respective counties, all of which was known to the framers of the Constitution.

Section 105, so far as relevant, provides that--

"No special, private or local law *** shall be enacted in any case which is provided for by a general law, or when the relief sought can be given by any court of this state."

It is entirely certain that the relief sought in this case for Jefferson county--we must assume that the Legislature was acting for what is considered the good of the county--could not be given by any court of this state. It is equally clear that no authority outside of the Legislature can give the relief desired. In Brandon v. Askew, 172 Ala. 160, 54 So. 605, a similar case in principle, it was said that--

"If the local bill proposes something different from, the provisions of the general law, and not within the catalogue of section 104, and in a case where the relief may not be had in some proceeding outside of the Legislature, how has it been provided for, and where is the inhibition to enact the local law? It seems, then, that this provision of the Constitution was intended to prohibit the enactment of special, private, or local laws to meet the purposes of particular cases which may be accomplished by proceedings outside of the Legislature under the provisions of general statutes enacted to meet all cases of that general character."

In the constitutional convention Judge Walker, who had previously written the opinion in Jones v. Jones, 95 Ala. 443 11 So. 11, 18 L.R.A. 95, showed his understanding of this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Glass v. City of Montgomery
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 11 Febrero 2022
    ...... Hills , 654 So.2d 532 (Ala. 1995), and Jefferson. County v. Taxpayers & Citizens of Jefferson County ... Board , 654 So.2d 1149 (Ala. 1994), in support of this. ... 181-82 (1980) (concluding similarly); Board of Revenue of. Jefferson Cnty. v. Kayser , 205 Ala. 289, 88 So. ......
  • Peddycoart v. City of Birmingham
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 13 Enero 1978
    ...Ry., Light & Power Co., 139 Ala. 453, 36 So. 700 (1903); Brandon v. Askew, 172 Ala. 160, 54 So. 605, 607 (1911); Board of Revenue v. Kayser, 205 Ala. 289, 88 So. 19 (1921); Mathis v. State, 280 Ala. 16, 189 So.2d 564 (1966); Dunn v. Dean, 196 Ala. 486, 71 So. 709 (1955); State ex rel. Jones......
  • Hall v. Underwood
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 26 Febrero 1953
    ...We also quote the following from the case of Walker County v. Barnett, 247 Ala. 418, 24 So.2d 665, 667: 'And in Board of Revenue v. Kayser, 205 Ala. 289, 88 So. 19, 20, attention is called to the explanation of section 105 in the constitutional convention as follows: 'Now is there any hards......
  • Steadman v. Kelly
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 19 Febrero 1948
    ...... County, Alabama, filed a petition for writ of mandamus. against ... of the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, to require. them to issue him a license to sell beer at ...Prince, 199 Ala. 444, 447, 74 So. 939; Board of Revenue v. Kayser,. 205 Ala. 289, 88 So. 19; Jackson v. Sherrod, ......
  • 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