Hill v. Moody

• Decision Date: 13 April 1922
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 299.
• Citation: 207 Ala. 325,93 So. 422
• Parties: HILL ET AL. v. MOODY, PROBATE JUDGE, ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

93 So. 422

207 Ala. 325

HILL ET AL. v. MOODY, PROBATE JUDGE, ET AL.

8 Div. 299.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 13, 1922

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.

Bill by Ben L. Hill and others, as taxpayers of Jefferson county against A. H. Moody, Probate Judge, and Commissioners' Court, to enjoin them from fixing and enforcing certain tax schedules for road purposes. From a decree denying relief complainants appeal. Affirmed.

Cooper & Cooper, of Huntsville, for appellants.

Bouldin & Wimberly, of Scottsboro, for appellees.

THOMAS J.

The bill contained appropriate prayer for process and injunctive relief against the named officials of Jackson county.

The grounds for injunctive relief are rested on the statements that: (1) The act of September 22, 1915 (Acts, pp. 573-577) is unconstitutional and void; (2) that the "Legislature of the state of Alabama was without legal authority to endow the said court of county commissioners with the power and authority to adopt the order made an exhibit to this bill and, particularly, that it was without legal power to endow said court of county commissioners with the authority, or impose upon it, the duty of fixing a schedule of rates of license taxes for the use of vehicles by the citizens of said county of Jackson, and, that the said court of county commissioners is without legal authority to fix a lien upon said vehicles, or establish any rule, regulations or law which could be deemed a misdemeanor under the laws of the state of Alabama"; and (3) by the amendment to the bill the act, "entitled 'An act to provide for the general revenue of the state of Alabama, approved September 15, 1919,' a system of license taxes was promulgated and established in the state of Alabama," the effect of which was to repeal and annul "the order of said commissioners' court of the county of Jackson *** and, for this reason the attempt to collect the tax on automobiles under said order of said commissioners' court is illegal." Acts 1919, p. 398.

Does the act violate provisions of section 45 of the Constitution? Appellants insist that its several subdivisions of title and of the body thereof embraced "two distinct subjects." We are of opinion that the same is not offensive to the stated provisions of the organic law of this state. Windham v. State, 202 Ala. 697, 79 So. 877; Windham v. State, 16 Ala. App. 383, 77 So. 963; State ex rel. v. Board of Rev., etc., 180 Ala. 489, 61 So. 368; Leonard v. Lyons, 204 Ala. 615, 87 So. 99; Ex parte Strawbridge, 201 Ala. 62, 77 So. 356; Id., 16 Ala. App. 195, 76 So. 479; Mills v. Commissioners, etc., 204 Ala. 40, 85 So. 564.

Was there an attempt at delegation of legislative authority that is denied by the Constitution, or was the delegation of the powers on courts of county commissioners or boards of revenue of the several counties, with respect to the subject embraced in, or objects to be accomplished by, the act, within legislative competency? Acts 1915, p. 573. Counties are civil or political organizations of the state, with limited and defined powers, and are agencies or auxiliaries in the administration of civil government; and, to the limited extent sought by the act before us, legislative power may be delegated to courts of county commissioners or boards of revenue. Comm'rs Court v. Moore, 53 Ala. 25; Askew v. Hale County, 54 Ala. 639, 25 Am. Rep. 730; Clark v. Mobile, 67 Ala. 217; Stanfill v. Dallas County, 80 Ala. 287; McGraw v. Comm'rs, 89 Ala. 407, 8 So. 852; Schultes v. Eberly, 82 Ala. 242, 2 So. 345; Dunn v. Wilcox County, 85 Ala. 144, 4 So. 661; Board of Rev. v. Merrill, 193 Ala. 521, 68 So. 971; Dunn v. Dean, 196 Ala. 486, 71 So. 709.

Under the act of September 22, 1915, and section 13 thereof, the courts of county commissioners, boards of revenue, or other governing bodies of the counties may, "for the purpose of maintaining the public roads, bridges and ferries of the county, impose upon the owners of vehicles which are used upon the public roads of the county such license taxes for each class of vehicles as may be deemed advisable by such court or boards." In Mills v. Commissioners, etc., supra, the provisions of section 13 as there interpreted were upheld, under the two acts having application (Gen. Acts 1915, pp. 489, 573), and it was declared that the county's authority extended to the imposition of a license tax on automobiles used for commercial purposes, and not on such motor vehicles used for private purposes by the owner or his family. The authorities were collected to the effect that cities, incorporated towns, and counties have such power of taxation as is delegated to them by legislative authority; and that the power of the Legislature to regulate the subject of taxation is unlimited, except only as restrained by the state or federal Constitution. Under section 13 of said act the court of county commissioners of Jackson county adopted an ordinance fixing and levying a license tax for road purposes on the designated vehicles used on the public roads, providing for the manner of the collection of the same, and requiring said tax to be paid to the road apportioner of the precinct in which the owner of the respective vehicles resided.

It is averred in paragraph 2 of the original bill that-

The annual license or privilege tax was assessed and levied under authority of the act in question "against each automobile used for the transportation of passengers, for hire, in the sum of thirty ($30.00) dollars; and a like annual license tax was assessed and levied for each wagon drawn by two or more horses, in the sum of ten ($10.00) dollars; and an annual license tax was likewise assessed, and levied for each surrey in the sum of two ($2.00) dollars; and a like annual license tax was assessed and levied on each wagon drawn by one horse, in the sum of five ($5.00) dollars; and a like annual license tax was assessed and levied on each buggy kept for private use in the sum of two ($2.00) dollars."

The bill avers of the further provisions of said order that in event of "default or delinquency on the part of the owners of said vehicles," the owners "shall work out their said license tax on that portion of the road which may be assigned them by the said apportioner"; that, in event of the "failure, or refusal to work on said road," they "shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and punishable under the laws of the state"; that the "county of Jackson shall have a lien upon the vehicle for the payment of the said license tax, including the costs of suit."

The order promulgated by the court of county commissioners made due observance of the construction of section 13 of the act in Mills v. Commissioners, etc., supra, and fixed a tax against the owners of each automobile used for commercial purposes, and not on those used by the owner for private use and that of his family.

Despite the fact that section 44 of the Constitution provides that the legislative power of the state shall be vested in a legislature, consisting of a house of representatives and senate, the act under consideration, endowing the...