Nelson v. People

• Decision Date: 12 July 1870
• Citation: 21 Mich. 236
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: The People ex rel. Nelson B. Jones v. Benjamin D. Pritchard, Commissioner of the State Land Office

21 Mich. 236

The People ex rel. Nelson B. Jones v. Benjamin D. Pritchard, Commissioner of the State Land Office

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 12, 1870

Heard July 7, 1870 [Syllabus Material]

Application for mandamus.

By Nelson B. Jones to compel the commissioner of the state land office to issue a certificate for the purchase of lot 5 block 245, in the city of Lansing, of which the relator claims to be the purchaser on the 28th of October, 1869, at a sale of primary school lands forfeited for non-payment of interest. The relator sets forth in his petition, that the commissioner bases his refusal to issue the certificate upon the provisions of act No. 85 of the session laws of 1869, and claims that the relator is not entitled to a certificate for said lot until the expiration of one year from said 28th day of October, A. D. 1869, and that during said time the lot is subject to redemption.

Mandamus denied, with costs.

Dart & Wiley, for relator:

I. Section 2 of article xiii of the constitution requires that the proceeds from the sales of primary school lands shall be and remain a perpetual fund, the interest and income of which * * * * shall be inviolably appropriated and annually applied to the specific object of the original gift, grant or appropriation.

We claim that act No. 85 of S. L. 1869, in its pretended amendment of section 2463 of C. L., is unconstitutional, in that it prevents the annual interest due upon the unpaid price for school lands being annually applied, but actually extends the time of payment of such interest between one and two years, placing it beyond the power of an annual application: Newell v. The People, 7 N. Y., 9.

II. Act No. 85 of S. L. 1869 is unconstitutional and void, as it does not conform to the requirements of section 25 of article 4 of the constitution of this state: Langdon v. Applegate, 5 Ind. 327; Rogers v. The State, 6 Ind. 31.

III. Act No. 85 of S. L. of 1869, so far as relates to the pretended amendment of section 2463 of Compiled Laws is a nullity. At the time of this pretended amendment there was no section 2463 compiled, or in the Compiled Laws; this section, having been amended by S. L. of 1859, had wholly disappeared from the Compiled Laws, and was known as act No. 13 of S. L. of 1859, or section 2463 of said act: Smith's Commentaries, §§ 784-6. If the section amended does not require republishing (13 Mich. 481), the legislature were required by section 25 of article 4 of the constitution of this state to name this act revised, and in this case the act to be revised and amended was act No. 113 of S. L. of 1859, and not section 2463 of C. L.

IV. The petitioner having, at the annual sales, bid this lot at public auction, for the sum of $ 360, and paid the 25 per cent required, he is entitled to have the certificate issued to him in accordance with section 2446 of C. L.

S. F. Seager, for respondent:

The only ground upon which relator rests his claim to relief by the suit prayed for, is that the act under which the land in question was sold (act No. 85, Laws 1869), is unconstitutional, and that action of commissioner must be governed by the law as it stood prior to the passage of that act. It is alleged that the act is in violation of said constitutional provisions.

I. That it violates section 25, article 4. It purports to be an amendment of section 2463 of Compiled Laws. In 1859 this section was amended by requiring owner of land to pay, upon redeeming, the expenses of appraisement and sale: Laws 1859, p. 309. It is claimed the act of 1869 is inoperative, as it does not refer to the act of 1859; that it aims to amend a certain section of the Compiled Laws which had no existence.

As to the effect of amendments similar in form to those of 1859 and 1869, see Ely et al. v. Holton, 15 N. Y., 597. After the amendment of 1859, a reference to section 2463 must mean that section as found not in the compilation of 1857, but as found in the laws of 1859. As to the particularity required in entitling acts, see People v. Mahoney, 13 Mich. 497; Cooley's Const. Lim., 157. Even if position of relator be correct, and section 2463 had no existence at the time of the passage of the act of 1869, the purpose of the act is sufficiently defined in the title, and it would operate as new statute.

II. But the principal objection urged against the act of 1859, is that it is opposed to section 2, article 13 of state constitution.

(a) The disposition made of the funds received on account of sales, etc., is all this constitutional provision seeks to control. The terms upon which the school lands were to be disposed of, has been, from the very first, left entirely to the legislature. The price and time of payment is regulated not by the constitution, but by statute. The act of 1869 makes the sale upon forfeiture, like the sale for unpaid taxes--a conditional one. The moneys received, upon such sale become the property of the state only in case of failure of the former owner to redeem. Until after such failure they are not a part of the income referred to in the clause of the constitution cited.

(b) The rights of the relator are in no way prejudiced by the disposition of the money paid by him at forfeited sales. The relator must show special injury from an alleged violation of a constitutional requirement, before he can ask the court to pass upon the question: Cooley's Const. Lim., 163.

The superintendent of public instruction might very properly inquire into the disposition made of the school money, but the relator shows no interest in himself that would require the court, at his request, to examine the constitutionality of the act of 1869. It is not the manner of conducting sale, but the disposition of proceeds, that the constitutional provision regulates, and though the act in question might, so far as relates to the proceeds of sale, be unconstitutional, the relator's rights are not affected; and even should the court hold the act unconstitutional in that respect, it would by no means follow that relator was entitled to relief.

OPINION

Cooley, J.

A mandamus is applied for in this case to compel the commissioner of the state land office to issue to the relator a certificate of purchase of a city lot in Lansing which was purchased by him at a sale of the same as forfeited school lands. The sale was made on the 28th day of October, 1869, and the purchase by relator is not contested, but the commissioner insists...