Lowery v. Red Cab Co.
| Decision Date | 19 April 1924 |
| Docket Number | (No. 9296.) |
| Citation | 262 S.W. 147 |
| Parties | LOWERY, Tax Collector, v. RED CAB CO. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; Royal R. Watkins, Judge.
Mandamus proceeding by the Red Cab Company against John M. Lowery, Tax Collector. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and rendered.
W. A. Keeling, Atty. Gen., and Claude D. Bell, of Dallas, for appellant.
Church, Read & Bane, of Dallas, for appellee.
This was a mandamus suit brought in the district court of Dallas county, Tex., by appellee, A. H. Garland, trading as Red Cab Company, against appellant, John M. Lowery, as tax collector of Dallas county, to compel him, as such officer, to register a particular five-passenger automobile owned by appellee and operated upon the public highways of this state for hire, and to issue to him a certificate of registration and distinguishing seal upon the payment of the tax provided by section 16a of chapter 75 of the general laws enacted by the regular session of the Thirty-Eighth Legislature. The tax tendered appellant under said section 16a amounted to $21, this being based on the weight and horse power of said automobile, as provided in said section. Appellant demanded an additional tax of $20 under section 16e of such legislative enactment, in which section is provided an additional tax to that prescribed in section 16a of $4 on each passenger capacity of the automobile when said automobile is used for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire. Appellee declined to pay the additional tax of $20, on the theory that section 16e is unconstitutional, and the additional tax it sought to levy on his car was illegal. Upon hearing of the case the trial court entered judgment granting appellee the writ of mandamus as prayed for, the court necessarily holding that said section 16e is unconstitutional. Appellant has duly perfected his appeal to this court.
The claim of appellee that section 16e is unconstitutional is based upon the ground (1) that the title to said chapter conflicts with the provisions of said section 16e, and (2) that the subject of section 16e is nowhere expressed in the title of said act, for which reason it is claimed that said section contravenes section 35, art. 3, of the Constitution of the state of Texas, and is therefore void. That portion of section 35, art. 3, of the Constitution of this state, that bears on this question, reads:
The title to chapter 75 of said laws is very comprehensive, and expresses with great particularity the subject of the legislation. It is not deemed necessary to quote the entire title. After stating that it is "an act to amend chapter 190 of the general laws of the regular session of the Thirty-Fifth Legislature, as amended," and after reciting the several amendatory acts, the title continues:
"* * * By amending section 16 of said chapter 190 as amended, and by adding to said chapter 190 sixteen new sections to be known as sections 16a, 16b, 16c, 16d, 16e, 16f, 16g, 16h, 16i, 16j, 16k, 16l, 16m, 16n, 16o, 16p, so as to provide for the registration of motor vehicles, tractors, trailers, semitrailers and motorcycles, requiring applications to be filed for the registering of such vehicles and prescribing the fees that shall be paid for their registration, defining commercial motor vehicles and tractors, prescribing penalties for the operation of a motor vehicle on the public highway not registered in accordance with the provisions of this act, prescribing the maximum weights and dimensions of motor vehicles that may be operated on the public highways, providing an additional registration fee for passenger motor vehicles with a seating capacity of more than seven passengers, prescribing the methods by which the fees provided herein shall be computed," etc.
Section 16a of said chapter provides generally for the registration of motor vehicles, tractors, trailers, semitrailers, and motorcycles, prescribes the tax that shall be paid for such registration, and is as follows:
Section 16e deals with passenger automobiles used for hire, and prescribes an additional tax to that assessed in section 16a, and is as follows:
It may be stated as the settled law of this state that, if the title of an act fairly gives reasonable notice of the subject-matter of the statute, the said constitutional mandate is observed; and, further, this mandate requires only that there be stated in the title to an act the ultimate object of the legislative enactment, and not the details with which the legislative object is to be attained. Stone v. Brown, 54 Tex. 330; Doeppenschmidt v. Railway Co., 100 Tex. 534, 101 S. W. 1080; Joy v. City of Terrell (Tex. Civ. App.) 138 S. W. 215.
It is also well established by the decisions of this and other states that, whether a title is comprehensive or restricted, expressed in general terms or with particularity, it must be in conformity with the subject of the legislation. If the title imports one subject, while the statute itself shows a different subject to be its purpose, the title is misleading, and the act is unconstitutional on the ground that its subject is not expressed in its title. 25 R. C. L. p. 864.
Every reasonable presumption must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bitter v. Bexar County
...v. Williamson, 46 Tex. Civ. App. 615, 103 S. W. 656; Joy v. City of Terrell (Tex. Civ. App.) 138 S. W. 215; Lowery, Tax Col., v. Red Cab Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 262 S. W. 147. It has frequently been held by the courts of this state that none of the provisions of a statute should be regarded as......
-
Thomas v. Groebl
...Hardy, 93 Tex. 289, 298, 55 S.W. 169; Tarrant County Water etc. District v. Fowler, 142 Tex. 375, 378, 179 S.W.2d 250; Lowery v. Red Cab Co., Tex.Civ.App., 262 S.W. 147, application for writ of error Petitioners attack the 1945 amendment, Chap. 333, as unconstitutional "because of being in ......
-
Tilton v. Dayton Independent School Dist.
...of said independent district, the subject-matter of the statute, and thus met the requirement of the Constitution. Lowery v. Red Cab Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 262 S. W. 147, 149 (writ refused); Geffert v. Yorktown Independent School District (Tex. Civ. App.) 285 S. W. 345; Morris & Cummings v. S......
-
Doyle v. King
... ... additional authorities: State v. Burgdoerfer, 107 ... Mo. 1, 17 S.W. 646, 14 L.R.A. 846; Seaboard Air Line Ry ... v. Simon, 56 Fla. 545, 47 So. 1001, 20 L.R.A., N.S., ... 126, 16 Ann.Cas. 1234; Mayor of Baltimore v. Keeley v ... Institute, 81 Md. 106, 31 A. 437, 27 L.R.A. 646; ... Lowery, Tax Collector, v. Red Cab Company, ... Tex.Civ.App., 262 S.W. 147; People v. McBride, ... 234 Ill. 148, 84 N.E. 865, 123 [211 S.C. 255] Am.St.Rep. 82, ... 14 Ann.Cas. 994; Tarantina v ... ...