Dodd v. Commissioners' Court of St. Clair County

• Decision Date: 12 June 1919
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 19
• Citation: 82 So. 521,203 Ala. 271
• Parties: DODD et al. v. COMMISSIONERS' COURT OF ST. CLAIR COUNTY et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

82 So. 521

203 Ala. 271

DODD et al. v. COMMISSIONERS' COURT OF ST. CLAIR COUNTY et al.

7 Div. 19

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 12, 1919

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; O.A. Steele, Judge.

Bill by R.J. Dodd and others against the Commissioners' Court of St. Clair County and others. From a decree denying injunction, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Tate &amp Logan, of Anniston, and M.M. Smith and C.K. Robinson, both of Pell City, for appellants.

MAYFIELD J.

This bill seeks injunctive relief against the enforcement in St Clair county of the recent Tick Eradication Statute, approved February 17, 1919.

The equity of the bill is sought to be rested on the unconstitutionality of the statute, and the allegation that there are no ticks in St. Clair county.

The first unconstitutional feature of the act urged is that the title of the act is not broad enough to include or cover the numerous provisions of the act which fix penalties as for failure to observe or to conform to the requirements of the act, and provide procedure for the enforcement of the penalties.

We cannot accede to this contention. The act is intended as one in the exercise of one of the police powers of the state and, in the exercise of such powers, it is usual, if not necessary, to provide penalties as for failure to observe or comply with the regulations so fixed or prescribed by the act, and such acts often contain provisions for the enforcement of the penalties.

An act to provide for state-wide eradication of cattle or fever ticks, or any other kind of ticks, certainly gives notice that penalties, and a mode of enforcing them, will be contained in the act. An act for the purpose of eradicating ticks, or other insects or vermin from the state, without penalties provided for failure to comply with its requirements would be useless. Such acts are not supposed to be mere declarations of principles or policies of the state they are supposed to be self-executing laws, and not mere declarations or proclamations of policies or principles like constitutional provisions. Such a law without provisions fixing penalties and providing modes for their enforcement would be dead letters, and worse than useless.

We know of no reason why the declaration of the policies or principles, the fixing of the penalties, and the mode for executing the policies and enforcing the penalties, should not all be included in one bill. Nor do we know of any reason why the title of such a bill should affirmatively show, in the way of an index, that the body of the bill would or would not contain all or a part of such provisions. The constitutional requirement, section 45 of the...