Griffin v. Drennen

• Decision Date: 30 June 1905
• Parties: GRIFFIN v. DRENNEN ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

40 So. 1016

145 Ala. 128

GRIFFIN v. DRENNEN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 30, 1905

On Rehearing, April 3, 1906.

Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; C. W. Ferguson, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Bill by George Griffin against W. M. Drennen and others. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainant appeals. Reversed rendered, and remanded.

This was a bill filed by appellant, as a taxpayer of the city of Birmingham, Ala., on behalf of himself and the other taxpayers, to require the mayor to refund to the treasurer of the said city all the money received by him as salary in excess of $2,500 from the 1st day of May, 1903, to the 31st of December, 1904. The bill alleges the passage of an act on February 26, 1903, fixing the salaries of mayors in all cities of over 35,000 population according to the last federal census at $2,500 a year payable monthly. It also alleges that the mayor, W. M. Drennen, has continuously since the passage of this act received from the said city treasurer the sum of $300 a month, or $3,600 per annum from the 1st day of May to the 1st day of December, 1904; that the city council had taken no steps to cause said money to be refunded by said Drennen in excess of said $2,500 to the said city treasurer. The defense set up was by way of demurrer attacking the constitutionality of the act pleaded, and motion to dismiss the bill for want of equity. W. M. Drennen personally and as mayor, and the mayor and aldermen of Birmingham, were made parties defendant. On the final hearing the chancellor decreed the grounds of demurrer well taken and entered an order declaring said act unconstitutional and sustaining the motion to dismiss for want of equity. From this decree, this appeal is prosecuted.

Cabaniss & Weakley, for appellant.

E. D Smith, for appellees.

ANDERSON J.

This appeal involves the constitutionality of Acts 1903, p. 108, entitled "An act to fix and provide for the salaries of mayors in cities in the state of Alabama." One would infer from the foregoing title that the act would be for the purpose of regulating the salaries of mayors in all cities of the state, regardless of size; not cities alone that contained 35,000 inhabitants, or that might hereafter reach that number, and to which class can only belong, as per the last census, Mobile and Birmingham. The body of the act is as follows:

"Section 1. Be it enacted by the Legislature of Alabama, that the salary of mayor in all cities in the state having over thirty-five thousand population, according to the last federal census, shall be two thousand five hundred ($2,500) dollars per annum, payable in monthly installments, out of the treasury of said cities.

"Sec. 2. That all laws and parts of laws in conflict with the provisions of this act be and the same are hereby expressly repealed."

Section 45 of the Constitution of 1901 provides: "* * * Each law shall contain but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title." The subject of the foregoing act is manifestly for the purpose of regulating the salaries of mayors of cities belonging to a certain class, while the subject expressed in the title is for the purpose of regulating the salaries of mayors in the cities of Alabama, and is not confined to the class provided for in the body of the act. One of the purposes of this constitutional requirement, observes Judge Cooley in his Constitutional Limitations, 172, is "to fairly apprise the people, through such publication of legislative proceedings as is usually made, of the subjects of legislation as are being considered, in order that they may have the opportunity of being heard thereon by petition or otherwise, if they shall so desire." And this provision of our Constitution is applicable to all laws, general or local, and regardless of other requirements as to the publication of notice of the intention to apply for the passage thereof. And it makes no difference whether the act applies to cities that had a population of 35,000 under the preceding census or to those that might have that much under subsequent enumerations, except, perhaps, in testing whether it is general or local, which is unnecessary for us to decide, for in any event it has reference to only a class of cities and is not in harmony with the title. Can it be a reasonable conclusion that the title to the bill in question gave notice that the subject of the act would apply only to cities in Alabama with a population of 35,000 or that would subsequently attain to that population? We think not. On the other hand, from a reading of the title we can only infer that the act would regulate the salaries of the mayors in all the cities in Alabama, regardless of population. The act is violative of section 45 of the Constitution of 1901 and must fall. If a title does not fairly and reasonably express the subject of the act, if it be misleading and deceptive, the Constitution compels its condemnation. Lindsey v. U.S. Savings Association, 120 Ala. 156, 24 So. 171, 42 L. R. A. 783.

The demurrers test the constitutionality of the act upon the sole ground that it is local and repulsive to sections 104 and 106 of the Constitution of 1901, save the first ground, which is but a general demu...