Bridges v. Holdout Mining Co.

• Decision Date: 28 June 1913
• Citation: 158 S.W. 579
• Parties: BRIDGES v. HOLDOUT MINING CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

158 S.W. 579

BRIDGES v. HOLDOUT MINING CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

June 28, 1913.

STATUTES (§ 76) — GENERAL OR "SPECIAL LAW"—CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS.

Rev. St. 1909, § 4053, provides that in all counties constituting a separate judicial circuit with two judges of the circuit court, and having no criminal court, the circuit court shall tax a docket fee of $3, to be collected at the time of filing any case therein, to be paid by the party instituting the suit or filing a transcript or certiorari on appeal, that such fee shall be taxed in favor of the party paying it the same as other costs in the case, but not requiring the payment of such fee in any criminal proceeding or in prosecutions for violations of municipal ordinances. Section 4054 provides that such fees shall be paid into the county treasury. Held, that section 4053, while so framed as to have the appearance of a general law, in its singling out all counties having no criminal courts had all the elements of a special law, and was invalid as violating Const. art. 4, § 53, prohibiting special and local laws when a general law can be made applicable.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; D. E. Blair, Judge.

Action by W. W. Bridges against the Holdout Mining Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded for trial de novo in the circuit court.

Action for personal injuries. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals.

The issue tendered by this appeal does not directly relate to the merits of the above entitled cause, but grows out of the action of the circuit court of Jasper county in affirming the judgment of a justice of the peace of that county on the ground that defendant, who was also the appellant below, neglected to pay a docket fee of $3 as required by an act of the General Assembly of 1901, now section 4053, p. 115, R. S. 1909.

The appellant, by proper procedure, challenges the constitutionality of section 4053, supra, on the ground that it is "in conflict with section 53, art. 4, of the state Constitution; that it is a special and local law, relating to cases where a general law could have been made applicable." Said section 4053, supra, reads as follows: "In all counties in this state which now constitute or may hereafter constitute a separate judicial circuit with two judges of the circuit court and having no criminal court, the circuit clerk shall tax and collect a docket fee of three dollars in each case filed in said court, which fee shall be collected at the time of filing such case, and shall be paid by the party instituting such suit or filing a transcript on certiorari or appeal. The amount of such docket fee shall be taxed in favor of the party paying the same as other costs in said case: Provided, that nothing in this section shall be construed to require the payment of said docket fee in any criminal proceeding or in prosecutions for a violation of any municipal ordinance; and provided further, that in suits for delinquent taxes, the prepayment of said docket fee shall not be required, but the same shall be taxed and collected as other costs in such cases." Section 4054 provides that the docket fee to be collected under the foregoing section shall be paid into the county treasury. Defendant has not favored us with any brief.

Frank L. Forlow, of Webb City, for appellant. Thompson & Thompson, of St. Louis, and E. W. Blair, of Joplin, for respondent.

BROWN, P. J. (after stating the facts as above).

The appellant concedes that the sole issue presented here for reversal is whether or not the above statute is a local or special law enacted in violation of the above-quoted provision of the Constitution. It seems that the framers of our organic law were especially apprehensive that future Legislatures of the state would undertake to harrass the people with obnoxious special or class legislation. After enumerating numerous kinds of special and local laws which should not be enacted, they inserted the following provision in the Constitution: "In all other cases where a general law can be made applicable, no local or special law shall be enacted; and whether a...