Goode v. Tyler

• Decision Date: 19 January 1939
• Docket Number: 3 Div. 280.
• Citation: 237 Ala. 106,186 So. 129
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: GOODE, COM'R OF AGRICULTURE AND INDUSTRIES, ET AL. v. TYLER.

186 So. 129

237 Ala. 106

GOODE, COM'R OF AGRICULTURE AND INDUSTRIES, ET AL. v. TYLER.

3 Div. 280.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 19, 1939

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Eugene W. Carter Judge.

Bill for injunction by R. K. Tyler against R. J. Goode, as Commissioner of Agriculture and Industries, and John Brandon as Treasurer of the State of Alabama. From a decree granting the writ, respondents appeal.

Affirmed.

A. A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., Chas. M. Pinkston, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Jack Crenshaw, of Montgomery, for appellants.

Horace C. Wilkinson and Ben. F. Smith, both of Birmingham, for appellee.

GARDNER Justice.

The State Board of Agriculture and Industries unanimously adopted the following resolution: "That the Board does hereby authorize the Commissioner to proceed with the establishment of a Concentration Produce Market within the State of Alabama, and to expend such sums as may be necessary for said purpose, not to exceed $125,000."

Pursuant to this resolution the Commissioner of Agriculture and Industries was in process of establishing such a market in Birmingham at an expenditure of $150,000 or $174,000, which includes an expected forty-five per cent. federal grant. With this money a lot was to be purchased and a building erected thereon with rental spaces for farmers who bring their produce for grading, standardization and storage awaiting shipment when sold. Upon completion the operating cost is estimated at $15,000 per year, which is expected to be realized from the rentals to farmers and inspection fees imposed. The initial outlay for the purchase of the lot and erection of the building is to be paid out of the agricultural fund, as defined in section 484 of the Agricultural Code of 1927, as amended by General Acts 1935, pages 12, 23, § 24.

The Agricultural Code of 1927 not only contains provision for fees and stamp taxes of numerous kinds but also annual license taxes for conducting certain businesses therein enumerated.

Complainant is a taxpayer of Jefferson County, and pays also whatever tax is imposed on feed and fertilizer, and as such taxpayer filed this bill seeking injunctive relief against the expenditure of these public funds for the purpose above noted as without authority of law.

Upon submission of the cause on oral proof and by agreement affidavit of the Commissioner, the chancellor granted the relief prayed and that the injunction issue. From this decree the Commissioner has appealed.

It is first objected that complainant is without right to institute this suit. Notwithstanding sharp conflict in the authorities generally, this Court is committed to the doctrine that a taxpayer may maintain a suit in equity to restrain a state officer in the unlawful disbursement of state funds. Turnipseed v. Blan, 226 Ala. 549, 148 So. 116; Hall v. Blan, 227 Ala. 64, 148 So. 601, and authorities therein cited.

Defendants insist this principle is here inapplicable as the agricultural fund does not contain taxes in the general sense and as derived from a general revenue bill.

But we think the argument too greatly restricts the right of a taxpayer to maintain such a suit. As we have observed complainant pays general taxes as well as some of the very taxes imposed by the Agricultural Code, and this code not only provides for fees and stamp taxes and the like, but license taxes also. In a very broad sense these are forms of taxation (37 Corpus Juris 168, 169; 61 Corpus Juris 65 and 107) sufficient in the instant case to justify the maintenance of this suit by this complainant. Nor do we see any element of bad faith involved in its institution. True complainant is a member of the Jefferson Truck Growers Association, which he no doubt considers will be injuriously affected by the establishment of this market by the State authorities; yet this but demonstrates his added interest, and in no manner affects the good faith of the proceedings.

We are therefore brought to a consideration of the merits of the case. And in this connection, the first inquiry is whether or not there is statutory authority for what is proposed in regard to the concentration market. To justify this expenditure of the fund the defendants must of course be able to point to some authority therefor in the law, and this authority must be given either directly or by necessary implication. 46 Corpus Juris 1018, 1034. Legislative intent must of course control, but there are authorities to the effect that there is a presumption against legislation by implication. 59 Corpus Juris 1011. This is the meaning of the decisions holding that such authority must appear either directly or by necessary implication.

It is not pretended there is here any direct authority for this venture found in the Agricultural Code or any amendment thereto. Reference is made to numerous sections of the Agricultural Code (sections 23, 334, 335, 336, 484 and 488). Some stress is laid upon section 488 as amended by General Acts of 1935, page 24, § 26, as follows: "The Commissioner of Agriculture and Industries, with the approval of the State Board of Agriculture, shall use the Agricultural Fund in accordance with the provisions of law for the support and expense of regulatory, control and administrative work of the Agricultural Section of the Department and in such manner as said Board deems will best effect the purposes of all laws included in said Agricultural Section."

The "regulatory control and administrative work," are defined by section 23 of the Agriculture Code, which...