Goodwin v. State Board of Administration

• Decision Date: 15 January 1925
• Docket Number: 3 Div. 682
• Citation: 102 So. 718,212 Ala. 453
• Parties: GOODWIN et al. v. STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

102 So. 718

212 Ala. 453

GOODWIN et al. v. STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION et al.

3 Div. 682

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 15, 1925

Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 1925

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Walter B. Jones Judge.

Bill in equity by A.J. Goodwin and others, as citizens and taxpayers against the State Board of Administration of Alabama and the members thereof. From a decree for respondents, complainants appeal. Affirmed.

Ball &amp Beckwith, of Montgomery, for appellants.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and James J. Mayfield, of Montgomery, for appellees.

ANDERSON C.J.

The bill in this case attacks the Act of 1923, page 769, which provides for the creation of an insurance fund and the insurance of state-owned buildings, and other things incident thereto. It first charges that the act was not legally passed because it violated House rule 18, which is set out in the bill, and, second, that certain provisions or sections there set out or referred to are repugnant to section 45 of the Constitution, in that they are not germane or cognate to the general subject dealt with in the title.

As to the first point, counsel candidly concede that the authorities are against his contention. The rule not being required by the Constitution, but adopted by the House for its own convenience, the fact that it may have been overlooked or violated in the passage of the act did not impair its validity. Tayloe v. Davis (Ala.Sup.) 102 So. 433.

We think that the sections of the act attacked by the bill are not only cognate and germane to the general subject or purpose of the bill, as expressed in the title, but were essential to an execution of the scheme or purpose of the act.

The proviso in the last section of the bill gives the board ample authority to insure the state's property until sufficient funds are acquired, under the act, to carry adequate insurance. We cannot give this proviso so narrow a construction that it meant merely to authorize the renewal of existing policies and did not authorize the board to insure in other companies. It is broad enough to authorize the insurance of the state's property with any companies or associations which in the opinion and discretion of the board was advantageous to the state. As the board has the authority to act in the matter, and being public officials of the state, the propriety of their conduct cannot be controlled or directed by injunction....