Keny Cnty. et rel. Bd. of Sup'rs of Kent Cnty. v. Reed

• Decision Date: 04 June 1928
• Docket Number: Motion No. 199.
• Citation: 243 Mich. 120,219 N.W. 656
• Parties: KENY COUNTY et rel. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF KENT COUNTY v. REED, Register of Deeds.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

243 Mich. 120

219 N.W. 656

KENY COUNTY et rel. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF KENT COUNTY

v.REED, Register of Deeds.

Motion No. 199.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 4, 1928.

Mandamus by the County of Kent, on the relation of the Board of Supervisors of Kent County, against George M. Reed, Register of Deeds of Kent County. Order denying the writ, and plaintiff brings certiorari. Order vacated and set aside, and writ granted.

Argued before FEAD, C. J., and NORTH, FELLOWS, WIEST, CLARK, McDONALD, and SHARPE, JJ.Ward & Strawhecker, of Grand Rapids, for appellant.

Rodgers & Dunn, of Grand Rapids, for appellee.

SHARPE, J.

Act No. 379 of the Local Acts of 1891 is entitled:

‘An act to provide for the compensation and to prescribe the duties of certain officers of the county of Kent.’

In it the salary of the register of deeds is fixed at $2,500 per annum. He had theretofore been entitled to the fees fixed by statute. Act No. 333 of the Public Acts of 1919 reads as follows:

‘An act to provide for the fixing of the salaries of all county officials, their assistants, deputies and clerks by the board of supervisors in those counties where said county officials, their assistants, deputies and clarks are paid salaries for their services, and to repeal act three hundred seventy-nine of the Local Acts of eighteen hundred ninety-one, as amended.

‘The people of the state of Michigan enact:

‘Section 1. In all counties of the state of Michigan where county officials and their assistants, deputies and clerks are paid salaries fixed by the board of supervisors for their services the board of supervisors of said counties shall have the right and power, and it is hereby declared to be their duty, to fix the salaries of all said county officials and their assistants, deputies and clerks at such sums as they deem necessary and adequate, except where such salaries are fixed by general law in accordance with the population of the county.

‘Sec. 2. All general and local acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act and act three hundred seventy-nine of the Local Acts of eighteen hundred ninety-one, and amended, are hereby repealed.’

This act in express terms repeals the local act. Its constitutionality is here attacked. It is urged that it violates section 21 of article 5 of the state Constitution, which provides that:

‘No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title. * * *’

While the object must be expressed in the title, it is to the body of the law that we must look to determine whether it embraces more than one object. The first section imposes upon the boards of supervisors in all counties where county officials are paid salaries fixed by such boards (with an exception not here material) the duty to fix such salaries. It is conceded that this section in no way applies to the county of Kent because the salaries of its officials are not fixed by its board of supervisors, but are fixed by the local act of 1891. This object is definitely stated in this section, and none other not germane to it may be included in the law as, under the constitutional provision, it (the law itself) may not embrace more than one object.

Section 2 expressly repeals the local act of 1891, which affects the county of Kent alone. Can it be said that this repeal is so connected with the object as disclosed by the provision in section 1 that it may be held to be germane to it? We think not. The provisions in these two sections might have been enacted in separate laws without either of them...