Kryder v. State

Citation15 N.E.2d 386,214 Ind. 419
Decision Date07 June 1938
Docket Number27044.
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Appeal from St. Joseph Circuit Court; Dan Pyle, Judge.

Hammerschmidt & Johnson, of South Bend, Church, Chester & Holdeman of Elkhart, Deahl & Deahl, of Goshen, Draper &amp Draper, of Gary, and McAleer, Dorsey, Travis & Young, of Hammond, for appellant.

Omer S. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Patrick J. Smith, Deputy Atty Gen., for the State.

SHAKE Judge.

This appeal involves the constitutionality of section 7 of chapter 271 of the Acts of 1937, the same being section 47-120a, Burns' Cumulative Pocket Supplement, December 1937, Section 11124-1, Baldwin's May 1937 Supp. The section under inquiry and so much of the title of the act in which it is found as relates to it is as follows:

'An Act to amend sections 1 * * * of an act entitled 'An act providing for the registration and licensing of motor vehicles, motor bicycles, tractors, trailers and semi-trailers, for the regulation of the use and operation thereof on public highways, defining chauffers and providing for the examination and licensing thereof, the suspension and revocation of licenses, and the transfer of ownership, requiring the keeping of certain records of motor vehicles, motor bicycles and motor trucks for which storage, supplies or repairs are furnished, providing that liens may be taken thereon, and prescribing penalties for the violation thereof,' approved March 14, 1925 * * * and to add new sections to the * * * above entitled act to be numbered sections 19 1/2 * * * and providing for an emergency.'

'Sec. 7. That the first above entitled act be amended by adding thereto a new section to be numbered section 19 1/2 to read as follows: Sec. 19 1/2. The certificate of registration hereinbefore referred to, issued upon the sale of license plates, shall be prominently displayed at all times in a holder approved by and bearing the stamp of approval of the commissioner of motor vehicles, in the lower inside right-hand corner of the windshield of every motor vehicle licensed by the State of Indiana, in such manner so as to be legible through the windshield to an observer outside the motor vehicle. Provided (,) however; (,) that in the case of a motor bicycle the certificate of registration shall be carried either in plain sight affixed to said motor bicycle, or in the tool bag or some other convenient receptacle attached to said motor bicycle. The commissioner of motor vehicles shall make available for purchase at the office of the bureau of motor vehicles and all duty (duly) authorized license branches an approved holder at a fee not to exceed twenty-five cents. For such holders so furnished by the commissioner of motorvehicles, said commissioner of motor vehicles shall receive bids from manufacturers of and dealers in approved holders and shall accept the lowest and best bid or bids submitted, quality, appearance and usability considered. The commissioner of motor vehicles shall have the right to reject any and all bids. All fees collected under the provision of this section, except so much thereof as may be appropriated for the cost of carrying out the provision of this section, shall be deposited daily with the state treasurer to be credited to the general fund of the State of Indiana. Anyone violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction therefor, shall be punished by a fine of not less than one dollar ($1.00) nor more than twenty-five dollars ($25.00), to which may be added imprisonment in the county jail for thirty (30) days. This section shall be in full force and effect on and after January 1, 1938.'

The appellant, having been convicted on a charge of violating the above section, prosecutes this appeal, alleging error in the overruling of his motion to quash and in denying his motion in arrest of judgment. It is his contention that the section set out above violates the following specific provisions of the Constitution of Indiana: (1) Section 23 of article 1, which is that: 'The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens;' (2) Section 1 of article 3, which reads: 'The powers of the Government are divided into three separate departments; the Legislative, the Executive including the Administrative, and the Judicial; and no person, charged with official duties under one of these departments, shall exercise any of the functions of another, except as in this Constitution expressly provided;' (3) Section 19 of article 4, which says: 'Every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith; which subject shall be expressed in the title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an act, which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be expressed in the title;' and (4) Section 5 of article 10, which is: 'No law shall authorize any debt to be contracted, on behalf of the State, except in the following cases: To meet casual deficits in the revenue; to pay the interest on the State Debt; to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, or, if hostilities be threatened, provide for the public defense.' It is also contended that said section violates section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A. Const. amend. 14, § 1, which provides: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'

'It is the duty of the courts to uphold an act of the Legislature, if it is possible to do so without violating the Constitution, and in doubtful cases to resolve the doubt in favor of the action of the Legislature; but, where it is clear that the law offends a constitutional inhibition, then it is the duty of the courts to uphold the Constitution rather than the statute which is in violation thereof.' Jackson v. State, 1924, 194 Ind. 248, 142 N.E. 423, 424.

We have carefully considered the legislation before us in the light of every constitutional objection urged against it. We do not find that it is defective on the grounds that it is class legislation, that the title of the act is insufficient to embrace the subject matter thereof, that it creates a public debt, or that it infringes upon the due process clause of the Federal Constitution. Koplovitz v. Jensen, 1926, 197 Ind. 475, 151 N.E. 390; Maholm v. Finney, So. Dist. of Indiana, 1938. [1]

From the briefs before us and the arguments of counsel, it appears that the principal objection urged against this act is that it constitutes an unauthorized delegation of the legislative power lodged by the State Constitution in the General Assembly. The division of the processes of government in this country into three coordinate and distinct branches is historic and traditional. 'One of the settled maxims in constitutional law is, that the power conferred upon the legislature to make laws cannot...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Clemons v. State, 3--673A72
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 30, 1974
    ...can delegate power to determine facts or the state of things upon which the application of the law depends. Kryder v. State (1938), 214 Ind. 419, 424, 15 N.E.2d 386; City of Aurora v. Bryant (1960), 240 Ind. 492, 165 N.E.2d 141; Noble v. City of Warsaw (1973), Ind.App., 297 N.E.2d 916; 16 A......
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • June 21, 1983
    ...228 Ind. 397, 92 N.E.2d 714; Benton County Council v. State ex rel. Sparks (1946), 224 Ind. 114, 65 N.E.2d 116; Kryder v. State (1938), 214 Ind. 419, 15 N.E.2d 386; Carroll Perfumers, Inc. v. State (1937), 212 Ind. 455, 7 N.E.2d 970; Albert v. Milk Control Board of Indiana (1936), 210 Ind. ......
  • Alanel Corp. v. Indianapolis Redevelopment Commission, 29704
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 12, 1958
    ...1939, 216 Ind. 114, 23 N.E.2d 472, 125 A.L.R. 736; Blue v. Beach, 1900, 155 Ind. 121, 56 N.E. 89, 50 L.R.A. 64; Kryder v. State, 1938, 214 Ind. 419, 15 N.E.2d 386; State ex rel. Reed v. Howard, 1946, 224 Ind. 515, 69 N.E.2d 172.2 See: Acts 1947, ch. 374, § 1, p. 1494, being § 48-8103, Burns......
  • Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. McShane, 2--276A76
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 9, 1976
    ...228 Ind. 397, 92 N.E.2d 714; Benton County Council v. State ex rel. Sparks (1946), 224 Ind. 114, 65 N.E.2d 116; Kryder v. State (1938), 214 Ind. 419, 15 N.E.2d 386; Carroll Perfumers, Inc. v. State (1937), 212 Ind. 455, 7 N.E.2d 970; Albert v. Milk Control Board of Indiana (1936), 210 Ind. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT