Edwards v. Childers
| Decision Date | 01 July 1924 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 15453 |
| Citation | 228 P. 472,102 Okla. 158,1924 OK 652 |
| Parties | EDWARDS v. CHILDERS, State Auditor et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. States -- Statutes -- "Appropriation" of Money
The appropriation of money is the setting it apart formally or officially for a special use or purpose, and where that is done by the Legislature in clear and unequivocal terms in a duly enacted law, it is an "appropriation." State ex rel. Bonsteel v. Allen (Fla.) 91 South. 104
2. Same
No arbitrary form of expression or particular words are required by the Constitution in making an appropriation, which may be made by implication, when the language employed reasonably leads to the belief that such was the intention of the Legislature. Menefee v. Askew, 25 Okla. 623, 107 P. 159
3. Same -- Constitutional Requirements -- Definiteness of Act--Creation of Special Fund
A legislative act creating a special fund, all of which is, by the terms of the act, appropriated and directed to be expended for a special purpose and in an express manner, amounts to an appropriation of the entire fund so created, and where the amount accruing to and paid into said fund is capable of being definitely ascertained, it is sufficiently definite and certain to comply with the provisions of article 5, sec. 55 of the Constitution.
4. Same--Special Fund Exclusive.
Where a special fund is created from sources not coming from, or out of, the general revenue fund of the state, the authority to the official board or commission to spend said fund for a special purpose may be granted where the authority to disburse said fund or obligate the state is limited to the amount of money that may go into said fund, and such officer is not permitted to incur an indebtedness against the state which may be payable out of, or charged against, the general revenue funds of the state
5. Same -- Lump Appropriation for State Highways--Validity
The construction, maintenance and repair of a system of state highways is incapable of being arbitrarily classified and itemized as to the amounts that may be expended for various purposes, in view of the fact that such amounts cannot be ascertained in advance of the work and the further fact that such work is usually constructed through federal, county, city, and township aid, and for these reasons a lump sum or amount may be, by the Legislature, appropriated for such purpose
6. Same
Section 3 of ch. 101 and section 8 of ch. 48, of the Session Laws of 1923-24, are valid appropriation of public funds for purposes stated and do not contravene the provisions of article 5, sec. 55, of the Oklahoma State Constitution.
Error from District Court, Muskogee County; E. A. Summers, Judge.
Injunction by A. J. Edwards against C. C. Childers, State Auditor, and others. From the judgment, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
J. Berry King, for plaintiff in error
George F. Short, Atty. Gen., John Barry, Asst. Atty. Gen., and McPherren & Wilson, for defendants in error.
¶1 This is a suit brought by A. J. Edwards, as plaintiff, in the district court of Muskogee county against the State Auditor, the State Treasurer, and the three members of the State Highway Commission, wherein the plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting the parties defendant from creating or paying any obligation out of the state highway construction and maintenance fund. The relief sought, if granted, would practically destroy the State Highway Commission and prevent the further construction and maintenance of state highways under the present law. The lower court denied the petition of the plaintiff in all respects except that it did enjoin the defendants from diverting and transferring to the state highway construction and maintenance fund the unexpended appropriated funds remaining to the credit of the state departments at the end of each fiscal year as provided in section 21 of ch. 48, being Senate Bill No. 434, of the Session Laws of Oklahoma of 1923-24. The case was determined in the lower court solely upon the law, and the plaintiff brings the case here on appeal by petition in error with transcript of the record attached. No cross-appeal is filed by the defendants. The right of the plaintiff to maintain this action has not been challenged, and we will, therefore, determine the issues presented upon the merits of the case.
¶2 In section 1, ch. 101, Sess. Laws of 1923-24, being House Bill No. 14, approved March 7, 1924, we have an act which levies a tax of two and one-half (2 1/2) cents per gallon on gasoline consumed in this state. By section 3 of that act, 60 per cent. thereof, or one and one-half cent (1 1/2c) per gallon, is placed in a special fund designated as "The State Highway Construction and Maintenance Fund." It is therein provided that all of this fund shall be expended without provision for residue to remain therein. It is therein provided that in so expending all of said fund, the department must use not less than 75 per cent. thereof for the construction of new highways, with the privilege of using a greater percentage, even to the inclusion of all the funds for this purpose The portion not thus used must be used for the repair and maintenance of highways already constructed. Section 3, supra, reads as follows:
¶3 Chapter 48 of Session Laws of 1923-24, being Senate Bill No. 44, approved March 14, 1924, creates a State Highway Commission, consisting of three members, and makes extensive provision for the building and maintenance of state highways. In section 8, paragraph e, the state highway construction and maintenance fund is clearly defined as follows:
"All moneys raised by taxation or otherwise for use on the state highways of this state shall, unless otherwise provided by law, be placed in the state treasury in a fund to be known as the state highway construction and maintenance fund. and shall be expended on state or county highways as herein provided, upon warrants issued by the State Auditor after the filing of proper vouchers or claims, by the State Highway Commission."
¶4 It is here urged that the two sections of the statute above quoted, in so far as they purport to permit the use of funds for the purposes stated, are insufficient and contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the state and that they are, therefore, void. Two reasons are assigned to support this theory, to wit: (1) That these sections of the statute do not attempt or purport to appropriate funds for uses of the department, and without such an appropriation these funds are unavailable; (2) that these sections of the statute do not "distinctly specify the sum appropriated and the object to which it is to be used" as required of appropriation bills by article 5, sec. 55, of the Oklahoma State Constitution.
¶5 It is admitted that the department cannot use the moneys in this fund unless the Legislature has appropriated the same for its use. What is an appropriation? The Supreme Court of Florida, in the case of State ex rel. Bonsteel v. Allen, 91 So. 104, said:
"The appropriation of money is the setting it apart formally or officially for a special use or purpose, and where that is done by the Legislature in clear and unequivocal terms in a duly enacted law, it is an 'appropriation.'"
¶6 In Campbell v. State Soldiers' & Sailors' Monument Commissioners, 115 Ind. 591, 18 N.E. 33, the Supreme Court of Indiana so clearly analyzed the term being considered that its conclusion is set out by the author of Words and Phrases (First Series) vol. 1, page 472, as follows:
¶7 This rule was reaffirmed by that court in the case of Carr v. State, 127 Ind. 204, 11 L.R.A. 372, and the opinion of the court was quoted with approval by the Supreme Court of North Dakota in the case of State v. Jorgenson, 142 N.W. 450.
¶8 In the case of Menefee, State Treasurer. v. Askew, 25 Okla. 623, 107 P. 159. we said:
"No arbitrary form of expression or particular words are required by the Constitution in making an appropriation, which may be made by implication, when the language employed reasonably leads to the belief that such was the intention of the Legislature."
¶9 We know of no well-reasoned cases to the contrary. It clearly appears from the language of these statutes that the lawmakers intended to set apart the moneys coming into this special fund for the sole use of this department in the construction and maintenance of state highways. If we find the statutes to be otherwise sufficient, we shall hold them to be valid appropriations of public money for the purposes stated.
¶10 Do these acts specify the sum...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oklahoma Capitol Imp. Authority, Application of
...within the established exceptions to the constitutional debt limitation provisions. 3 Edwards v. Childers, 1924 OK ----, 102 Okla. 158, 228 P. 472, 477. 4 Boswell v. State, 1937 OK ----, 181 Okla. 435, 74 P.2d 940, 5 Art. 10, § 23, reads in pertinent part: The state shall never create or au......
-
Morgan v. Daxon
...P.2d 1264, 1266. The term "appropriation" need not be used as part of the designation of a lawful appropriation. Edwards v. Childers, 102 Okla. 158, 228 P. 472, 473-474 (1924). I use the express language of H.B. No. 1570 in dividing the various categories, and I express no opinion on whethe......
-
In re Oklahoma Capitol Imp. Authority
...the fact that none of the terms referred to in either case is used in the 2000 amendments to § 301.15 ¶ 28 Relying heavily on Edwards v. Childers, 1924 OK 652, 102 Okla. 158, 228 P. 472, the dissent also complains that our reading of the purpose-of-borrowing requirement is overly restrictiv......
-
Indep. Sch. Dist. of Okla. Cnty. v. Hofmeister
...elapse at the end of 2 1/2 years from the date of the passage of the act. The question is prematurely presented to the court. Edwards v. Childers , 1924 OK 652, 102 Okla. 158, 228 P. at 477.The Legislature does use revolving funds for the purpose of funding specific needs in common educatio......