Grable v. Childers
| Decision Date | 24 March 1936 |
| Docket Number | 26401. |
| Citation | 56 P.2d 357,176 Okla. 360,1936 OK 273 |
| Parties | GRABLE v. CHILDERS, State Auditor. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A statute which by reason of the subject to which it relates may have a direct effect upon a relatively small number of persons is nevertheless a general law if it operates equally and uniformly upon all brought within the relations and circumstances for which it provides.
2. It is only where an act of the Legislature is clearly, palpably and plainly inconsistent with the terms and provisions of the Constitution that the courts will interfere and declare such an act invalid and void. Protest of Downing et al., 164 Okl 181, 23 P.2d 173.
3. The state may as a matter of public policy require its employees to perform their obligations respecting trust funds of the state and in the event of any delinquency on account thereof to require a portion of the salaries paid by the state to such employees to be applied in extinguishment of such delinquency.
4. Chapter 188, Sess.Laws 1933, authorizing and directing the state auditor under certain circumstances to withhold and apply 25 per cent. of the salary of the state employees who are delinquent in respect to their obligations to the trust funds under the control and management of the land office violates neither section 46 nor section 59, art. 5 of the Constitution of Oklahoma.
5. By due process of law is meant the enforcement of right or prevention of wrong before a legally constituted tribunal having jurisdiction over the class of cases to which the one in question belongs, with notice to the party upon whom the law exhausts itself or upon whose property rights it operates, with an opportunity to appear and be heard in his own defense. Wilhite et al. v. Cruce et al., 70 Okl 70, 172 P. 962.
6. Provision for notice, hearing, and appeal contained in chapter 188, Sess.Laws 1933, provides due process of law in accordance with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution (section 1) and section 7, art. 2 of the State Constitution.
7. Mandamus is properly denied where plaintiff fails to show a clear legal right thereto.
Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Lucius Babcock and Sam Hooker, Judges.
Action for peremptory writ of mandamus by Mrs. Wilma Grable against C. C. Childers, State Auditor. From an order overruling demurrer to the answer and return to alternative writ and denying the peremptory writ, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
S. P Freeling, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
This action was instituted in the district court of Oklahoma county by Mrs. Wilma Grable as plaintiff against C. C Childers, state auditor, as defendant, applying for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel said defendant to issue and deliver to said plaintiff a state warrant in full of her salary as a state employee.
It is conceded that the answer and return of the defendant to the alternative writ correctly states the facts. In said answer and return defendant admits that the plaintiff was an employee of the state of Oklahoma; that she had earned $27 during the month of April, 1935, as an employee of the state of Oklahoma; that she had filed a claim for this amount and that the same had been allowed in full; that defendant had paid to plaintiff the sum of $20.75, and had delivered to the commissioners of the school land office a warrant for $6.75, the balance due under said claim; that said payments were made in accordance with the provisions of chapter 188, Session Laws 1933. Defendant further alleged that plaintiff had previously procured a loan out of said school funds of the state of Oklahoma from the commissioners of the land office and was delinquent with respect to the interest and principal thereon; that notice had been served upon the plaintiff by registered mail.
On September 21, 1933, as required by section 3 of said chapter 188, supra, thereunder, plaintiff was directed to show legal cause, if any she had, why 25 per cent. of her future salary warrant should not be applied as they accrued upon her delinquent account with the commissioners of the land office. That plaintiff neglected to make any showing to this effect and that an order was thereupon entered by the defendant, as provided by said act, to the effect that thereafter 25 per cent. of plaintiff's salary should be applied, beginning with the month of October, 1933, to the extinguishment of plaintiff's delinquency as aforesaid. Defendant further alleged that plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law by reason of the provisions of chapter 188, supra, and asked that the peremptory writ be denied. Demurrer of the plaintiff to said answer and return was overruled, and plaintiff elected to stand on her petition. The writ of mandamus was denied, and the plaintiff now appeals. The parties occupy the same position in this court as they did in the trial court, and will hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendant. The sole question presented for our determination is the constitutionality of chapter 188, Session Laws 1933, which, omitting the title, reads as follows:
"Section 1. In transactions where State officers and/or State employees are delinquent on obligations arising out of a loan of Trust Funds under the control and management of the Commissioners of the Land Office, the Commissioners of the Land Office shall, without first exhausting their remedy against mortgaged security, be entitled to proceed to require the State Auditor or other salary warrant issuing officer of the State, to issue them warrants in an amount not greater than twenty-five per centum of the monthly salary, as said salary accrues, of any State officer or State employee who is in arrears with his interest or other obligation to the Commissioners of the Land Office, arising out of a loan of Trust Funds under the control and management of the Commissioners of the Land Office; the procedure to require such payment shall be as follows, to-wit:
(a) Upon resolution adopted by the Commissioners of the Land Office, the Secretary to the Commissioners of the Land Office, shall file an affidavit with the State Auditor or other salary warrant issuing officer of the State, showing the amount of delinquent interest, the length of time said interest has been delinquent, or any other delinquency and the length of time any such other delinquency has been in arrears, on any obligation due from any State officer or State employee to the Commissioners of the Land Office arising out of a loan of Trust Funds under the control and management of the Commissioners of the Land Office.
(b) Upon the filing of the affidavit required under subdivision (a) of Section 1 of this Act, the State Auditor or other salary warrant issuing officer of the State, shall cause a notice to be served by registered mail upon the State officer or State employee who is affected by the affidavit of the Secretary to the Commissioners of the Land Office, and shall state in said notice that if the delinquent interest, or other delinquency arising out of a loan of Trust Funds under the control and management of the Commissioners of the Land Office, is not paid before the first day of the month following service of such notice that twenty-five per centum of all of his or her future monthly salary warrants shall be issued to the Commissioners of the Land Office and credited by the Commissioners of the Land Office upon the account of such defaulting State officer or State employee, until such delinquent interest or other delinquency is satisfied in full.
Section 2. The notice by registered mail required under Section 1 of this Act shall be served not less than ten (10) days before the first day of the month following such service.
Section 3. Any State officer or State employee who is affected by the affidavit filed by the Secretary to the Commissioners of the Land Office, shall have the right to show any legal cause to the State Auditor, or other salary warrant issuing officer, as to why twenty-five per centum of all his future monthly salary warrants should not, as they accrue, be applied to the payment or satisfaction of his delinquent interest account or other delinquency due from him or her to the Commissioners of the Land Office, on any obligation arising out of a loan of Trust Funds under the control and management of the Commissioners of the Land Office, until such time when said delinquent interest or other delinquency is satisfied in full, provided that no exemptions of any nature shall be a defense against payment to the Commissioners of the Land Office.
Section 4. The State Auditor, or other salary warrant issuing officer of the State, shall, on or before the first day of the month following the registered mail notice required under Section 1 of this Act, either make an order requiring the payment of twenty-five per centum of the salary, as said salary accrues, of any State officer or State employee to the delinquent interest account or other delinquency owing from such State officer or State employee on any obligation arising out of a loan of Trust Funds under the control and management of the Commissioners of the Land Office, or shall make an order showing legal cause as to why such payment can not or should not be made.
Section 5. Upon the filing with the State Auditor...
To continue reading
Request your trial