Martin v. Moore, Civil 4616
| Decision Date | 31 December 1943 |
| Docket Number | Civil 4616 |
| Citation | 143 P.2d 334,61 Ariz. 92 |
| Parties | C. M. MARTIN, Appellant, v. THAD MOORE, D. C. O'NEIL and JOE HUNT, succeeding Warren Peterson, as members of the TAX COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellees |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. M. T. Phelps, Judge. Chapter 16, Laws of 1943 declared unconstitutional by this opinion.
Messrs Langmade & Langmade, for Appellant.
Mr. Joe Conway, Attorney General, and Mr. Earl Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, for Appellees.
The plaintiff, C. M. Martin, a wholesaler of supplies and merchandise at Phoenix, Arizona, on May 28, 1942, commenced his action for declaratory relief against the members of the State Tax Commission, alleging that a controversy existed between him and the tax commissioners as to the correct construction of certain provisions of the Excise Revenue Act of 1935, as amended by Chapter 2, First Special Session, Laws of 1937 (sections 73-1301 to 73-1334, Arizona Code 1939), and asking that the court determine such controversy.
Thereafter issues were formed upon which the court heard the parties and, on January 18, 1943, rendered judgment. The portion of the judgment involved in this proceeding reads as follows:
"Sales by wholesalers, retailers, dealers, or others, to persons firms, corporations, or others, licensed to do business under the Excise Revenue Act of 1935, as amended, to contractors licensed and doing business under the Excise Revenue Act, as amended, are taxable as a retail sale to a consumer, regardless of whether the goods, supplies, merchandise and equipment, or articles sold are shovels, hammers, squares, etc., or cement, lumber, or building material fabricated into the construction by the contractor."
The Legislature was in session when the above judgment was rendered, and on March 1, 1943, there was enacted over the Governor's veto the following legislation (being Chapter 16, Laws of 1943):
"An Act
RELATING TO THE EXCISE REVENUE ACT, AND PROHIBITING THE COLLECTION OF SALES TAX ON CERTAIN MATERIALS SOLD TO CONTRACTORS, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Be it Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Tax on Materials Prohibited. No excise or sales tax shall be collected on materials heretofore or hereafter sold to a contractor and by him incorporated into work constructed by him under contract, and on which he has paid a tax under the excise revenue Act.
Sec. 2. Declaratory. This Act shall be deemed to be declaratory of existing law.
Sec. 3. Emergency. To preserve the public peace, health, and safety it is necessary that this Act become immediately operative. It is therefore declared to be an emergency measure, to take effect as provided by law."
The question for us to decide is the validity of this legislation. If it is effective, it not only invalidates and sets aside the court's judgment, which both parties hereto admit was correct when rendered, but establishes the law for the future.
The plaintiff has brought the matter to this court seeking its judgment as to whether said legislation is valid.
Said Chapter 16 does not purport to be an amendment of the original act. It neither amends, alters nor repeals. Before an act can amend or revise an existing law it shall be set forth and published at full length, which, of course, was not done in this case.
Section 14, Article IV, pt. 2, of the State Constitution reads:
"No act or section thereof shall be revised or amended by mere reference to the title of such act, but the act or section as amended shall be set forth and published at full length."
The act states that it shall be deemed to be declaratory of existing law. The only issue here is whether or not the Legislature has the power to pass such a law.
Article III of our Constitution provides:
"The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanelli v. Glenview State Bank
...law by stating that an act was 'declaratory of existing law' was ' * * * clearly * * * unconstitutional.' (Martin v. Moore, 61 Ariz. 92, 94 & 96, 143 P.2d 334, 335 (1943). * * * Although it would appear that the legislature disagreed with our decision * * *, the legislature did not attempt ......
-
Duhame v. State Tax Commission
... ... concerned ... The ... first decision in the case of Moore v. Pleasant Hasler ... Const. Co., 50 Ariz. 317, 72 P.2d 573 (by a ... the Crane case, this Court so held. Martin v. Moore, ... 61 Ariz. 92, 143 P.2d 334. For cases from other ... ...
-
Cain v. Horne
...have an affirmative duty to independently review and interpret legislation and rule on its constitutionality. See Martin v. Moore, 61 Ariz. 92, 95, 143 P.2d 334, 335 (1943). ¶ 21 Horne concedes that, under the school voucher programs, state funds are sent directly to participating schools, ......
-
Chevron Chemical Co. v. Superior Court, s. 15617-S
...law by stating that an act was "declaratory of existing law" was " * * * clearly * * * unconstitutional." Martin v. Moore, 61 Ariz. 92, 94 & 96, 143 P.2d 334, 335 (1943). In the instant case, the amendment was not a declaration of existing law, nor was it a repeal of this court's decision i......