Henry v. Wilson

• Citation: 139 So. 259,224 Ala. 261
• Decision Date: 03 December 1931
• Docket Number: 6 DIV. 55.
• Parties: HENRY, COUNTY TREASURER, v. WILSON.
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

139 So. 259

224 Ala. 261

HENRY, COUNTY TREASURER, v. WILSON.

6 DIV. 55.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 3, 1931

Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1932.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; John Denson, Judge.

Petition of Earl Wilson for mandamus to M. V. Henry, as Treasurer of Jefferson County. From a judgment for petitioner, respondent appeals.

Reversed and rendered.

GARDNER and FOSTER, JJ., dissenting.

Thos E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Charlie C. McCall, Asst Atty. Gen., for appellant.

R. B Evins, of Birmingham, for appellee.

ANDERSON C.J.

Section 106 of the Constitution of 1901 requires that no local, special, or private law shall be passed on any subject without giving the notice as there prescribed, and makes it the mandatory duty of the courts to pronounce the same void if the journals do not affirmatively show that it was passed in accordance with the provision of the section.

Section 110 of the Constitution says: "A general law within the meaning of this article is a law which applies to the whole state; a local law is a law which applies to any political subdivision or subdivisions of the state less than the whole; a special or private law within the meaning of this article is one which applies to an individual, association, or corporation."

It is conceded that no attempt was made to publish the notice as required by section 106, but the contention is made that the act in question (House Bill No. 384) is a general law, and that notice was therefore unnecessary.

While the act attempts to classify the counties upon a population basis, there set out, as now existing, or as they may exist under any succeeding census, it deals with a class of officers and employees who are paid out of the county treasury. With the exception of Jefferson and Montgomery counties, the major class of officials or employees dealt with are not paid by the counties, but by their respective chiefs, who are largely, if not entirely, upon a fee basis or system. Therefore, should any other county in the state, except Jefferson and perhaps Montgomery, attain the requisite population, the act, as to its major features, cannot apply or operate without the aid of future legislation or perhaps constitutional amendments changing the method of compensation; that is, by providing that clerks, assistants, and deputies for the various county officers be paid by the counties instead of by their chief or employer. Hence, even after a county attains the necessary population, with the exception above noted, the act cannot of its own force and effect apply thereto without the aid of future legislation materially changing existing conditions, and it cannot therefore apply, at present, to any county other than Jefferson, or, in the future to any counties in the state, except Jefferson and Montgomery, notwithstanding they may acquire the necessary population. In other words, something must be done by the lawmakers in the future to give the act a field for operation except as to Jefferson and Montgomery counties.

While there is an attempt to give the act a cloak of generality, a reading of same discloses that it is intended to deal only with conditions in Jefferson county, though it might apply to Montgomery county in the remote future, but cannot apply to the other counties, in its major parts, unless lawmakers, in the future, change or revolutionize the method of compensating clerks, deputies, or assistants of the respective officials. State v. Gullatt, 210 Ala. 452, 98 So. 373; In re Opinion of the Justices, 216 Ala. 469, 113 So. 584; Mobile County v. Byrne, 218 Ala. 5, 117 So. 83; Birmingham Electric Co. v. Harry, 215 Ala. 458, 111 So. 41; Kearley v. State ex rel. Hamilton (Ala. Sup.) 137 So. 424.

In support of the act, the appellee relies largely upon the cases of Board of Revenue v. Huey, 195 Ala. 83, 70 So. 744, and State ex rel. Covington v. Thompson, 142 Ala. 98,...