Merchants' Union Barb-Wire Co. v. Brown

• Decision Date: 16 September 1884
• Citation: 20 N.W. 434,64 Iowa 275
• Parties: MERCHANTS' UNION BARB WIRE CO. v. BROWN, AUDITOR OF STATE, ET AL
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

20 N.W. 434

64 Iowa 275

MERCHANTS' UNION BARB WIRE CO. v. BROWN, AUDITOR OF STATE, ET AL

Supreme Court of Iowa, Council Bluffs

September 16, 1884

Appeal from Polk Circuit Court.

THIS is an action in equity for an injunction to restrain the issuance of a warrant for certain money by the auditor of state, and the payment of the same by the state treasurer to the Farmers' Protective Association. Upon the filing of the petition a temporary injunction was allowed. The defendant filed a sworn answer to the petition, and moved to dissolve the injunction upon bill and answer. The motion was submitted to the court below upon the bill and answer and certain amendments thereto, and upon certain affidavits and exhibits, and, upon a hearing, the circuit court dissolved the injunction. The plaintiff appealed, and now by motion prays this court to restore the injunction pending the appeal, and restrain the defendants as prayed in the petition.

Motion OVERRULED.

Whiting S. Clark, for appellant.

Smith McPherson, Attorney-general, and Wright, Cummins & Wright for appellees.

OPINION

ROTHROCK, CH. J.

The Twentieth General Assembly passed the following act, which was duly approved by the governor of this state:

"An act to appropriate funds to aid the Farmers' Protective Association of Iowa in litigation relating to patents on barbed wire.

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Iowa:

"SECTION 1. That there be and is hereby appropriated, out of funds not otherwise appropriated, the sum of five thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be needed, to aid the Farmers' Protective Association of Iowa in defending in actions now pending, or which may hereafter be brought, in the state of Iowa on account of alleged infringement of patents on barbed wire, and for the purpose of testing the validity of said patents.

"SEC 2. That whenever the executive committee of said association shall certify in writing to the auditor of state that they are in need of funds for the purposes herein set forth, and shall enter good and sufficient bonds for the faithful disbursement of and accounting for said funds, then the said auditor shall issue his warrant upon the state treasurer for the amount asked for, which amount shall not in the aggregate exceed the amount hereby appropriated, and the state treasurer shall pay such warrant upon presentation."

It appears from the record before us that the Farmers' Protective Association seeks to avail itself of the provisions of this act by conforming to the requirements of the second section thereof. The injunction was asked for and obtained upon the alleged ground that the act is in contravention of the constitution, and therefore void; and this is the sole question presented in the argument upon the motion. The record does not show that the Farmers' Protective Association contemplates using the appropriation in any other manner than that designated in the act in question.

I. It is claimed that the act in question is in violation of section 30, article 3, of the constitution, which provides that, in all cases "where a general law can be made applicable, all laws shall be general and of uniform operation throughout the state." The argument is that the law in question could have been made general and of uniform operation, by providing that $ 5,000 should be appropriated to each person in the state, to aid "each person in defending in actions now pending, or which may hereafter be brought, in the state of Iowa, on account of alleged infringements of patents on barbed wire and for the purpose of testing the validity of said patents. "

The record shows that suits are now pending in the federal courts in this state in reference to the validity of barbed wire patents between other persons, and in which the Farmers' Protective Association is not a party. But notwithstanding this fact, we think the subject matter of the legislation in question is such that a general law cannot be made applicable. The act in question is what in legislative parlance is denominated an appropriation act. Such acts are in their very nature local and special, as distinguished from general laws. There may be a question whether under the constitution there is any legislative power to make the appropriation, but it seems to us there can be no question if an appropriation is authorized, or rather not forbidden, by the...