Oregon Short Line R. Co. v. Minidoka County

• Decision Date: 18 November 1915
• Parties: OREGON SHORT LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondent, v. MINIDOKA COUNTY, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 5 and WILSON BOWLBY, Treasurer, Appellants
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

153 P. 424

28 Idaho 214

OREGON SHORT LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondent, v. MINIDOKA COUNTY, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 5 and WILSON BOWLBY, Treasurer, Appellants

Supreme Court of Idaho

November 18, 1915

LAWS-CONFLICT IN-ENACTMENT OF-APPROVAL BY GOVERNOR-SPECIAL PURPOSE OF ACT-AMENDMENT OF ONE SECTION-ACT AMENDING MANY SECTIONS-RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

1. Where two acts amending certain sections of the statute are introduced in the House at different times, the object of the first bill being to amend a single section of the school law and the object and purpose of the second bill being to amend many sections of the school law, and both bills fixing the maximum levy at fifteen mills are passed by the House and sent to the Senate, and the Senate amends the first bill by reducing the maximum levy from fifteen to five mills, and on the same day passes the other bill without amendment, and the bill as amended by the Senate is passed by the House, and both bills are sent to the Governor on the same day, and he signs them on the same day, and there is no evidence as to which one he signed first, in determining which of the bills should remain in force, the court will take into consideration the intent of the legislature in passing such bills, and will construe said acts in the light of the purpose for which they were enacted.

[As to similar acts passed at same legislative session, see note in 88 Am St. 289.]

2. Where two acts passed on the same day and signed by the Governor on the same day are ambiguous or contradictory, such acts should be construed in the light of the circumstances that induced their enactment, and the purpose sought to be accomplished thereby.

3. Held, that the special object and purpose of House Bill 74 was to reduce the maximum levy from fifteen mills to five mills, and that the particular attention of both the House and the Senate was directed to the reduction of the maximum levy that a school district could make for the purposes mentioned.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District in and for Minidoka County. Hon. Wm. A. Babcock, Judge.

Action to enjoin the collection of a fifteen mill levy of taxes made by School District No. 5 and to limit such levy to five mills. Judgment for the plaintiff. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs in favor of the respondent.

Longley & Walters and Homer C. Mills, for Appellants.

Inasmuch as the two sections of the law are in conflict, the later or subsequent is deemed to repeal the former, and such later and subsequent act is the act in effect at the time this action was instituted. (Noble v. Bragaw, 12 Idaho 265, 85 P. 903; People v. Dobbins, 73 Cal. 257, 14 P. 860; Louisville v. Savings Bank, 104 U.S. 469, 26 L.Ed 775; Peavy v. McCombs, 26 Idaho 143, 140 P. 965.)

The court takes judicial notice of the public and private acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the state. (Davis v. Whidden, 117 Cal. 618, 49 P. 766.)

"It is an old and well-settled rule that when two laws upon the same subject, passed at different times, are inconsistent with each other, the one last passed must prevail." (Davis v. Whidden, supra, and cases cited.)

George H. Smith and H. B. Thompson, for Respondent.

The rule to be applied for the purpose of determining whether a five or a fifteen mill levy is the lawful one is whether, in the light of all of the proceedings had by the legislature with reference to this subject, it was their intention to reduce the levy from fifteen mills, as it had theretofore existed, to five, according to the principle of construction announced by the court in Colburn v. Wilson, 24 Idaho 94, 132 P. 579.

"A section of a statute should be construed in the light of the purpose for which the legislature enacted the particular act of which such section is a part." (Schaedler v Columbia Contract Co., 67 Ore. 412, 135 P. 536.)

"It is not the business of the court to deal in any subtle refinements, but it is rather its duty to ascertain, if possible, from a reading of the whole act the purpose and intent of the legislature and to give force and effect thereto." (Swain v. Fritchman, 21 Idaho 783, 125 P. 319, 323.)

The limit of lawful levy must be held to be five mills, as expressly fixed by the legislature in the adoption of House Bill No. 74, chapter 88, Laws of 1913, admitting that the same is repugnant to the more general statute passed at the same session. (36 Cyc. 1151.)

"This court takes judicial notice of the journals of the House of Representatives and Senate of this state in passing upon legislation." (Peavy v. McCombs, 26 Idaho 143, 140 P. 965. See, also, Trinity County v. Mendocino County, 151 Cal. 279, 90 P. 685, 687, and cases cited.)

SULLIVAN, C. J. Budge and Morgan, JJ., concur.

OPINION

SULLIVAN, C. J.

This action was brought by the Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, a corporation, against Minidoka county, School District No. 5 of said county, and the county treasurer, to restrain the collection of taxes assessed on the basis of a fifteen mill levy, and to limit them to a five mill levy as provided by chap. 88, p. 362, of the Session Laws of 1913. The fifteen mill levy was made under the provisions of chap. 115, p. 434, Session Laws 1913.

The trial court held that the provisions of said chap. 88 limiting the levy to five mills controlled in this case, and that the levy of fifteen mills under said chap. 115 was null and void as to any excess over a levy of five mills, and entered judgment accordingly in favor of the...