Boise City v. Baxter

• Decision Date: 06 August 1925
• Parties: BOISE CITY, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES F. BAXTER and KITTY E. BAXTER, Defendants and Appellants
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

238 P. 1029

41 Idaho 368

BOISE CITY, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES F. BAXTER and KITTY E. BAXTER, Defendants and Appellants

Supreme Court of Idaho

August 6, 1925

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-UNITY OF SUBJECT AND TITLE-WHEN AN ACT is SINGLE-WHAT IT MAY CONTAIN-WHEN A LAW MAY BE MADE A PART OF ANOTHER BY ADOPTION-COMMISSION FORM OF GOVERNMENT-CITIES AND TOWNS-RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN-OF ANNEXATION.

1. C S., chap. 173, title 32, secs. 4172 to 4312, inclusive entitled "Commission Form of Government," Sess. L. 1911, p. 280, contains but one general subject, object and purpose: that of providing for the organization and operation of cities that are public municipal corporations within the designated class mentioned in said act.

2. Where the provisions of an act all relate directly or indirectly to the same subject, have a natural connection therewith, are not foreign to the subject expressed in the title, and are not a cover to legislation that is incongruous in itself and which by no fair intendment can be considered as having a necessary or proper connection with the general subject to which the act relates, such act is not in violation of art. 3, sec. 16 of the constitution, relating to the unity of subject and title.

3. Where an act has but one general subject, object or purpose and all of its provisions are germane to the same subject and have a necessary connection therewith, however numerous its provisions may be, it is not multifarious and does not constitute duplicity of subjects within the meaning of art 3, sec. 16 of the constitution.

4. While art. 3, sec. 16 of the constitution is mandatory, it should not be so construed as to embarrass legislation or make laws unnecessarily restrictive in their scope and operation, or to needlessly multiply their number. It means that all matters treated of in an act should fall under some one general idea, and be so connected with and related to each other, either logically or in popular understanding, as to be parts of one general subject.

5. An act may adopt by reference thereto, the provisions of existing statutes and make them a part of such act, and such method of legislation does not render the act duplicitous or multifarious within the meaning of art. 3, sec. 16 of the constitution, if the law thus adopted has a legitimate connection or relation to the subject of the new act and does not attempt to embrace therein, dissimilar and discordant subjects, which by no fair intendment can be considered as having a legitimate connection or relation to the subject of the act.

6. The power to exercise the right of eminent domain is a right belonging to cities and towns and one that is necessary to their growth and development. A law giving such a right is directly connected with the subject of an act that authorizes the creation and operation of cities and towns. The commission form of government act does not contain a provision therein expressly granting such power, but, since C. S., sec. 4178, provides that all general laws of the state not inconsistent with the act, shall apply to cities organized thereunder, this general law pertaining to the right of eminent domain is a right that may be exercised by cities organized under the act.

7. Cities and towns generally possess the power of annexing additional territory, under such restrictions and limitations as the legislature may have imposed. The provisions of chap. 160, secs. 3850, 3851, and 3852, which pertain to the annexation of contiguous territory, are not inconsistent with the commission form of government act, and these provisions of the annexation law are, by C. S., sec. 4178, adopted by reference and made a part of said act.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, for Ada County. Hon. Clinton H. Hartson, Judge.

Action by municipal corporation to condemn lands for street purposes. Judgment for plaintiff. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs of this appeal to respondent. Petition for rehearing denied.

J. B. Eldridge, for Appellant.

The trial court erred in holding that C. S., secs. 4178, 3850, 3851, 3852 and 7404, have been constitutionally enacted and are now applicable to Boise City, and that Boise City has power and authority to annex the territory sought to be condemned, and to condemn the same, under and by virtue of said statutes. (Const., secs. 16, 17 and 18 of art. 3; State v. Banks, 37 Idaho 27, 215 P. 468; State v. Purcell, 39 Idaho 642, 228 P. 796; Lewis v. Dunne, 134 Cal. 291, 66 P. 478; Archbold v. Huntington, 34 Idaho 558, 201 P. 1041; McDonald v. Doust, 11 Idaho 14, 81 P. 60, 69 L. R. A. 220; Christie v. Bayonne, 48 N.J.L. 407, 5 A. 805; Cooley on Const. Limitations, 203-205; Carroll v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 28 Idaho 466, 154 P. 985; 1 Lewis' Sutherland on Statutory Construction, 2d ed., sec. 144; State ex. rel. Board v. Common Council of Trenton, 53 N.J.L. 566, 22 A. 731; Kessler v. Fritchman, 21 Idaho 30, 119 P. 692; Swain v. Fritchman, 21 Idaho 783, 125 P. 319; Fralick v. Guyer, 36 Idaho 648, 213 P. 337.)

J. J. McCue, Henry Z. Johnson, C. S. Hunter and J. P. Pope, for Respondent.

C. S., sec. 4178, is a constitutional and legal enactment. (Kessler v. Fritchman, 21 Idaho 30, 119 P. 692; Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Bradley, 8 Idaho 310, 101 Am. St. 201, 68 P. 295, and cases cited: Swain v. Fritchman, 21 Idaho 783, 125 P. 319; Gillesby v. Board, 17 Idaho 586, 107 P. 71; Anderson v. Great Northern R. R. Co., 25 Idaho 433, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 191, 138 P. 129; Curoe v. Spokane & I. E. Ry. Co., 32 Idaho 643, 186 P. 1101; Nampa & Meridian Irr. Dist. v. Barker, 38 Idaho 529, 223 P. 529; Culver v. People, 161 Ill. 89, 43 N.E. 812; People v. Crossley, 261 Ill. 78, 103 N.E. 537; Gaston v. Lamkin, 115 Mo. 20, 21 S.W. 1100; 2 Lewis' Sutherland on Statutory Construction, sec. 405 and cases cited; Beal's Cardinal Rules of Legal Interpretation, pp. 377, 386; Clements v. Hall, 23 Ariz. 2, 201 P. 87, 89; Scottish Union & National Ins. Co. v. Phoenix Title & Trust Co. (Ariz.), 235 P. 137; Ex parte Burke, 190 Cal. 326, 212 P. 193.)

WILLIAM A. LEE, C. J. Wm. E. Lee, Budge, Givens and Taylor, JJ., concur.

OPINION

WILLIAM A. LEE, C. J.

--This action was commenced by respondent Boise City, to condemn certain lands belonging to appellants for the construction of a highway from the city to the new Oregon Short Line passenger station, recently constructed on the bench south and beyond what has been the city limits. Respondent city is organized and operating under C. S., title 32, chap. 173, secs. 4172 to 4298, entitled "Commission Form of Government," Sess. L. 1911, chap. 82, p. 280. In April, 1912, Boise City held an election and the voters authorized the adoption of this form of city government, whereupon it organized under the act and has since exercised its corporate powers thereunder instead of under its former charter. The method of government under this act differs from the former law, under which the city operated, but this act does not intend to restrict cities adopting it from exercising the general corporate powers previously possessed.

The act continues all franchises theretofore granted and in force, all by-laws, ordinances and resolutions that had been lawfully passed and were then in force. C. S., sec. 4180, provides that the territorial limits of the city shall remain the same as under its former organization, but may be extended or changed as provided by law; that all rights and property of every description vested in such city, shall vest under the new organization; that no rights or liabilities, in favor of or against it, and no suits or prosecutions shall be affected by such change; that such city shall be the successor of the former organization and have perpetual succession; that it shall have and exercise all powers, functions, rights and privileges, now or hereafter given it; that it shall be subject to all duties, obligations, liabilities and limitations, now or hereafter imposed by the constitution and laws, and it shall have and exercise all other powers, functions, rights and privileges usually exercised by or which are incidental to or inhere in municipal corporations of like character and degree.

C. S., sec. 4178, makes all general laws of the state pertaining to such cities and not inconsistent with the act applying to cities organized under this chapter, provided that no provision of any special charter or other special act or law, which any such city may be operating under at the time of being organized under this chapter, shall thereafter be applicable to cities under this commission form of government, while they are so operating.

The amended complaint alleges that Boise City needs a certain tract of land for the purpose of constructing and maintaining thereon, a street, within the confines and boundaries of said city, for the purpose of a roadway to and from the new Oregon Short Line depot, located in the northeast quarter of sec 16, T. 3 N., R. 2 E., B. M., Ada county, to the 9th Street bridge in said city, and the streets leading thereto. This land sought to be taken from appellants is particularly described by metes and bounds and is shown upon a map made a part of the complaint. It is alleged that the use for which respondent seeks to have this property condemned is a public use, that is, the opening, widening, improvement and maintaining a public street for the purpose of travel thereon to and from said station to the 9th Street bridge; that respondent has sought in good faith to purchase this land from appellants and pay for the damages resulting to the remainder of their property by the taking of this land, but has been unable to do so, and prays for general relief for the condemnation and taking of private property for...