League of Women Voters v. Renfro
| Decision Date | 14 February 1974 |
| Citation | 290 So.2d 167,292 Ala. 128 |
| Parties | LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS of Alabama, etc., et al. v. Hugh RENFRO et al., etc. SC 384. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Drake, Knowles & Still, University, for appellants.
Walter P. Crownover, Tuscaloosa, for appellees.
Complainants (appellants) filed their bill against the Tuscaloosa County Board of Registrars seeking a declaratory judgment that the Board was required to remain open on Saturdays for the months of October, November, December and January. Complainants appeal from a decree adverse to them.
The bill, in its amended form, has the League of Women Voters of Alabama and Phyllis Rea as complainants. Complainant League is a non-profit, unincorporated association, the general purpose of which is to promote political responsibility. Complainant Rea is president of the League and is a resident of and registered voter in Lee County, Alabama. Respondents demurred to the bill on the grounds that complainant League has not alleged that it suffered any injury as an association, and on the grounds that complainant Rea is not a resident of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, and is ineligible to vote therein. Demurrer was overruled. Respondents then joined issue on complainants' allegation that the Board was required by law to remain open on Saturdays. No evidence was taken. The facts were submitted to the trial court by stipulation for a decision. The trial court held that the Board was not required by law to remain open on Saturdays.
Act No. 1428, Acts of Alabama 1971, Vol. III, p. 2454, 1958 Recompilation, Appendix, 14B, § 382(19), applying to Tuscaloosa County, provides for the meeting days of Board of Registrars in pertinent part as follows:
Act No. 317, 1959 Regular Session of the Alabama Legislature, a general statute of local application, is in pertinent part:
'That in all counties of this State coming within the purview of this Act, the Board of Revenue or like governing body of such county is hereby authorized to fix and set aside and designate, by resolution, from time to time, one day out of each week other than Sundays for all court house offices and other county offices to be closed.'
Pursuant to this Act allowing closing of county offices, the Tuscaloosa Board of Revenue passed a resolution designating Saturday as the day for closing the courthouse.
During the months of October, November, December and January, it is the policy of the Board of Registrars to meet on the first Monday of each month through Friday, close on Saturday and Sunday, and continue in session Monday through Friday of the following week. At all times, the Board of Registrars has met in the county courthouse. Sometime prior to October, 1972, complainants requested that the Board of Registrars remain open on Saturdays during October, November, December and January. The Board declined.
It is stipulated that to open one office of the courthouse on Saturdays would require the expense of additional personnel; due to the design of the building, opening one office therein gives the general public access to the entire building. It is further stipulated that a meeting of the Board at a place other than at the courthouse would necessitate acquisition of space by rent or otherwise and the expense of moving large amounts of equipment and supplies.
The appellants' several assignments of error make it necessary to construe the term 'legal holiday' as used in Act No. 1428, listed in Appendix, § 382(19), and ascertain whether or not a closing day designated pursuant to Act No. 317, 1959 Regular Session of the Legislature, is within the meaning of the term 'legal holiday.'
Appellants' argument rests on the proposition that Saturday is not one of the enumerated legal holidays in Tit. 39, § 184, as amended. Appellants contend that since Saturday is not so enumerated, it is not a legal holiday within the meaning of that term in Act No. 1428, listed in Appendix, § 382(19). However, this argument is without merit since Tit. 39, § 184, as amended, is a list of legal holidays for commercial and banking purposes only. Smith v. State, 243 Ala. 253, 9 So.2d 122.
The question of whether or not a closing day comes within the meaning of the term 'legal holiday' must be answered by reference to certain well-established rules of statutory construction.
The fundamental rule of construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature as expressed in the statute. City of Montgomery v. Montgomery City Lines, 254 Ala. 652, 49 So.2d 199; Edgehill Corp. v. Hutchens, 282 Ala. 492, 213 So.2d 225.
The office of statutory construction is not to improve a statute, but to expound the meaning and intent thereof. Alabama Industrial Bank v. State ex rel. Avinger, 286 Ala. 59, 237 So.2d 108.
The purpose and intent of the lawmakers should not be defeated by a narrow construction based upon nice distinctions in the meaning of words. Ex parte State, 241 Ala. 304, 2 So.2d 765; Pappanastos v. State Tax Commission, 235 Ala. 50, 177 So. 158.
In ascertaining the legislative intent it is necessary to be mindful that a thing may be within the letter of a statute, but not within the meaning; or within the meaning, but not within the letter. Statutory construction requires that the letter of the statute yield to the true meaning and intent of the lawmakers. City of Birmingham v. Southern Express Co., 164 Ala. 529, 51 So. 159.
Statutes are in pari materia where they deal with the same subject. Kelly v. State, 273 Ala. 240, 139 So.2d 326. Where statutes are in pari materia they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roe v. Mobile County Appointment Bd.
...to the intent of the legislature in enacting the statute. Advertiser v. Hobbie, 474 So.2d 93 (Ala.1975); League of Women Voters v. Renfro, 292 Ala. 128, 290 So.2d 167 (1974). If possible, the intent of the legislature should be gathered from the language of the statute itself. Advertiser v.......
-
State v. City of Birmingham
...is that this Court is to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent as expressed in the statute. League of Women Voters v. Renfro, 292 Ala. 128, 290 So. 2d 167 (1974). In this ascertainment, we must look to the entire Act instead of isolated phrases or clauses; Opinion of the Justices,......
-
Phillips v. State (In re Phillips)
...be construed together" and "should be resolved in favor of each other to form one harmonious plan." League of Women Voters v. Renfro, 292 Ala. 128, 131, 290 So. 2d 167, 169 (1974).’ Henderson v. State, 616 So. 2d 406, 409 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993). Thus, like § 13A-5-40(10), we construe § 13A-......
-
Abbott Laboratories v. Durrett
...existing when the Alabama antitrust laws were enacted. See Advertiser Co. v. Hobbie, 474 So.2d 93 (Ala.1985); League of Women Voters v. Renfro, 292 Ala. 128, 290 So.2d 167 (1974). The time immediately before the enactment of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 and the Alabama antitrust laws i......