James v. Gulf Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 March 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 9430.,9430. |
| Citation | 179 S.W.2d 397 |
| Parties | JAMES, State Treasurer, et al. v. GULF INS. CO. et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Travis County; Roy C. Archer, Judge.
Suit by Gulf Insurance Company and others against Jesse James, State Treasurer, and others, for a declaration of the unconstitutionality of the act providing for placing portions of certain special funds in the general revenue fund, and to restrain its enforcement. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.
Judgment set aside and injunction dissolved.
Gerald C. Mann, Atty. Gen., and R. W. Fairchild and Gaynor Kendall, Asst. Attys., Gen., for appellants.
Wood & Wood, of Austin, and Thompson, Knight, Harris, Wright, & Weisberg, of Dallas, for appellees Aetna Ins. Co. and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
Shook & Shook, of Dallas, for appellee Republic Ins. Co.
Coleman Gay, of Austin, amicus curiae.
This is an appeal from a judgment declaring Senate Bill 144, c. 313, Acts 1943, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. arts. 6687b, § 15, 4385a, to be unconstitutional and restraining its enforcement. The material portions of the Act read, as follows:
The act was passed by each branch of the Legislature on the last day of the 1943 Session of the 48th Legislature by adopting the report of a Conference Committee, with an emergency clause, and to become effective on September 1, 1943.
From the contentions made in the briefs, it seems the trial court held that Senate Bill 144 was enacted in violation of Secs. 30, 33, 35, 36 and 38 of Article 3, and Secs. 1, 2, 3 and 7 of Article 8 of the Texas Constitution, Vernon's Ann.St., and in violation of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution. It is our view that the Act does not violate either of these constitutional provisions or requirements.
The Act does not violate Sec. 30 of Article 3, providing that "no law shall be passed, except by bill, and no bill shall be so amended in its passage through either House, so as to change its original purpose."
The photostatic copy of the original Act filed with the Secretary of State shows that it bears the signature of John Lee Smith, President of the Senate, and the signature of Price Daniel, Speaker of the House, certificates of passage of the Act over the respective signatures of Bob Barker, Secretary of the Senate, and Clarence Jones, Chief Clerk of the House, the approval of Coke Stevenson, the Governor of Texas, and the certificate of Sidney Latham, Secretary of State, showing that the Act was filed in his office on May 17, 1943. The title states the legislative purpose to transfer "portions of certain special funds * * * and especially * * * a portion of the * * * Operator's and Chauffeur's License Fund to the General Revenue Fund." The body of the Act names or lists eighteen special funds of which a portion was to be so transferred. The emergency clause recites "that it is an unsound practice to leave huge surpluses in special funds while the General Revenue Fund * * * shows a deficit." There is nothing in the enrolled bill filed with the Secretary of State to indicate that it had undergone any change or amendment in its passage through the Legislature. Over objection it was shown that as originally passed by the Senate only the Operator's and Chauffeur's License Fund was named in the body of the bill, and from which all except $75,000 was to be transferred to the General Revenue Fund on each September 1st. The House amended the bill by adding a section transferring any balance in the "Senate Centennial Fund." The Senate refused to concur in this amendment. The Conference Committee struck out the transfer of the Senate Centennial Fund and added Sec. 2 transferring portions of the seventeen special funds named, and inserting in the first line of the title, between the words "placing" and "certain," the words "portions of."
If the enrolled bill filed with the Secretary of State may be impeached by evidence aliunde the bill, the foregoing evidence was not sufficient to show any change of purpose in the passage through the Legislature. The sole purpose of the Act as expressed in its title was to transfer "certain" or "portions of certain special funds * * * and especially * * * a portion of the surplus from the Operator's and Chauffeur's License Fund to the General Revenue Fund." The fact that particular special funds were added or taken from the list of funds did not change the purpose of the legislation, but it remained the same throughout the passage of the Act.
If a change in the original purpose of the legislation were made to appear, it was shown only by evidence aliunde the enrolled bill filed with the Secretary of State, and the rule is settled in this State that its validity cannot be so impeached. Williams v. Taylor, 83 Tex. 667, 19 S.W. 156; Blessing v. City of Galveston, 42 Tex. 641; Day Land & Cattle Co. v. State, 68 Tex. 526, 4 S.W. 865; Ellison v. Texas Liquor Control Board, Tex.Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 322, error refused; Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Stuart, Tex.Civ.App., 48 S. W. 799, reversed on other points 92 Tex. 540, 50 S.W. 333; Harris County v. Hammond, Tex.Civ.App., 203 S.W. 445, error refused; Parshall v. State, 62 Tex.Cr.R. 177, 138 S.W. 759.
In the Williams-Taylor case the court held [83 Tex. 667, 19 S.W. 157]:
"Our constitution provides that after the passage of a bill it shall be signed by the presiding officer of each house, in the presence of the house; and we are of opinion that when a bill has been so signed, and has been submitted to and approved by the governor, it was intended that it should afford conclusive evidence that the act had been passed in the manner required by the constitution."
In the Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Stuart case the court held:
The Act does not violate the requirement of Sec. 33 of Art. 3, providing that "all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives."
The two special funds listed in Sec. 2 of the Act and directly involved in the instant case are the "Motor Vehicle Insurance Division Fund" and the "Fire Insurance Division Fund." The first fund arises under Sec. 11-a of Art. 4682b, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. and the latter arises under Art. 4902, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. These statutes provide that the taxes or fees assessed against the named insurance companies, in addition to all other taxes imposed upon them, shall be deposited in the respective special funds named in the statutes, to be used to defray the expenses of regulation of insurance companies writing certain kinds of insurance; and further provide that the annual taxes assessed and collected for such purposes shall depend upon the balance on hand at the end of each fiscal year in such special funds.
The court seems to have sustained the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carlton v. Grimes
... ... v. Mulock, the opinion disapproved of some ... comment in Dayton v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co., 202 Iowa ... 753, 756-759, 210 N.W. 945, 947; but the closing words of the ... latter ... Heights Addition, 194 Okl. 221, 149 P.2d 265; James v. Gulf ... Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 179 S.W.2d 397; State ex rel. Watson ... v. Gray, 153 Fla ... ...
-
Bush v. Martin
...followed in more recent cases: Ellison v. Texas Liquor Control Bd., Tex.Civ.App., 1941, 154 S.W.2d 322, writ ref'd; James v. Gulf Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 1944, 179 S.W.2d 397, rev'd on other grounds, 1945, 143 Tex. 424, 185 S.W.2d 966; Falkner v. Memorial Gardens Ass'n, Tex.Civ.App., 1957, ......
- Gulf Ins. Co. v. James
-
Smith v. Davis
...Yeary v. Bond, 384 S.W.2d 376, 380 (Tex.Civ.App.1964, writ ref'd n.r.e.); James v. Gulf Insurance Co., 179 S.W.2d 397, 403 (Tex.Civ.App.1944, rev'd on other grounds), 143 Tex. 424, 185 S.W.2d 966 (1945). It is also contended that Section 2b violates Art. 8, Sec. 1 of the Texas Constitution ......