"The
plaintiffs are the owners of some 14,000 acres of land
described in the bill, and situate in the township of
Eulalia, county of Potter, and state of Pennsylvania, and
distant some sixteen miles from the borough of Coudersport.
By virtue of sixteen miles from the borough of Coudersport.
By virtue of the provisions of the act of Feb. 8, 1871
school taxes and taxes for school buildings were assessed
against said lands by authority of the school directors of
Coudersport borough school district for the years 1892 and
1893, amounting to $1,524.60. These taxes the plaintiffs have
refused to pay, alleging that they are without authority of
law, and the defendant Charles Coats, the treasurer of the
county, has caused the lands to be advertised for sale. The
lands of the plaintiffs are within the boundaries of the East
Fork road district, as they are defined in an act, entitled
'An act erecting the south part of Eulalia township, in
the county of Potter, into a separate road district,'
approved April 3, 1862. They are also among the lands
enumerated in an act, entitled 'An act to attach certain
lands in Potter county to Coudersport school district for
school purposes,' approved April 2, 1867, which last
mentioned act was repealed by the act of May 26, 1891, P.L.
132.
"In
addition to the taxes above referred to, there was assessed
against the lands of the plaintiffs described in the bill for
the benefit of the said school district, defendant, for the
year 1893, school bond taxes amounting to $925.65. At the
request of the plaintiffs, the defendant Coats, the county
treasurer, sent to the plaintiffs, before any payment of
taxes, a statement of all the taxes assessed against their
lands in tabular form, which was marked by the stenographer
'Plaintiffs' Exhibit "A,"' and is made
part of this finding. The various kinds of taxes were set
opposite the numbers of the several warrants, under
appropriate headings, as 'county tax,' 'school
tax,' etc. One of these headings was the word
'bond,' without more. The plaintiffs, not intending
to pay any school taxes, included the taxes under this head
in their check to the treasurer, and had no knowledge that
the taxes under that head were in fact school taxes, until
the treasurer returned his receipt, in which the heading was
altered to read 'school bond,' and the taxes were so
designated in the body of the receipt. The taxes so
unintentionally paid were the school bond taxes above
referred to, and amounted to $925.65.
"It
is conceded that a threatened sale of lands for taxes, where
the power attempting to tax has no jurisdiction, or where the
taxing authorities are acting contrary to law, will be
restrained by injunction: St. Clair's School Board's
App., 74 Pa. 252; Miller v. Gorman, 38 Pa. 309;
Markoe v. Hartranft, 6 Am. Law Reg., (N.S.), 487.
The plaintiffs contend that the second section of the act of
Feb. 8, 1871, P.L. 31, which is the only authority for the
assessment of the taxes in question, is in conflict with the
eighth section of the eleventh article of the constitution of
Pennsylvania, in force at the time of its passage, and hence
void.
"The
section in question is as follows: 'That the whole of the
territory contained in the East Fork road district, in the
county of Potter, is hereby annexed to the said school
district of Coudersport, and the board of school directors of
said school district are authorized and empowered to levy and
collect a school tax upon the assessed valuation of all
property in said territory, the same as they levy and collect
upon the property within the original bounds of said school
district.' The act from which the above section is quoted
is entitled 'A supplement to an act entitled "An act
to enable the board of school directors of the borough of
Coudersport, in the county of Potter, to establish and
maintain a graded school.'" The East Fork road
district was established by an act of assembly approved April
3, 1869, P.L. 706, entitled 'An act erecting the south
part of Eulalia township, in the county of Potter, into a
separate road district.' This act provides that certain
warrants, including the lands of the plaintiffs in Eulalia
township, together with certain other lands in Summit, Abbott
and West Branch townships, shall constitute a separate road
district, to be known as the East Fork road district.
"It
is to be noted that the lands in Eulalia township, affected
by the second section of the act of Feb. 8, 1871, had been
already 'attached' to Coudersport for school
purposes, by the act of April 2, 1867, with like power of
taxation as is given in the later act. The act of 1867 was
repealed by title in 1891. Either the legislature has
accomplished absolutely nothing by this repeal, or it must be
construed to abolish the law which it repealed, though
contained in a different act from that cited. This
construction would repeal the identical law which is
contained in the act of 1871. But as the language of the
repealing statute is plain, we have no warrant for resorting
to construction. We must assume, therefore, even against
reason, that the legislature intended precisely what it did,
viz, to repeal a law already repealed and supplied by the act
of 1871.
"The
constitutional provision, which it is alleged this statute
violates, is identical in meaning with the third section of
the third article of the constitution of 1874. To determine
whether an act offends against this provision, we must
inquire whether it contains more than one subject; and if
not, whether the single subject of the act is clearly
expressed in its title. The purpose of the first requirement
was to prevent the passage of 'omnibus bills,' or, as
it is expressed in the corresponding section of the
constitution of New Jersey, 'to avoid improper
influences, which may result from intermixing in one and the
same act, such things as have no proper relation to each
other.' Few bills are so elementary in character that
they may not be subdivided under several heads; and no two
subjects are so wide apart that they may not be brought into
a common focus, if the point of view be carried back far
enough. The quotation from the constitution of New Jersey
furnishes the proper light in which to define the word
'subject.' Those things which have a 'proper
relation to each other; which fairly constitute parts of a
scheme to accomplish a single general purpose,'
'relate to the same subject,' or 'object.'
And provisions which have no proper legislative relation to
each other and are not part of the same legislative scheme
may not be joined in the same act. What was the legislative
subject of the act of the 13th of April, 1869, to which the
bill in question is a supplement? The title answers, 'To
enable the board of school directors of Coudersport, in the
county of Potter, to establish and maintain a graded
school.' To this end, its first section authorizes the
trustees of the Coudersport academy to convey all its
property to the school directors of Coudersport borough, to
be used by them for the purpose of establishing and carrying
on a common or graded school. The second section repeals
certain laws of no moment here. The third authorizes the levy
of two per cent upon the valuation of all the taxable
property in the district. The supplement in question, in the
first section, provides that the school directors may charge
tuition in the high school department of the graded school,
and in all of the departments except to pupils residing in
Coudersport borough, and Eulalia township. And the second
section is the one above quoted, annexing the East Fork road
district to Coudersport for school purposes. The greater part
of the territory contained in the East Fork road district had
been, as we have said, attached to Coudersport for school
purposes, by a special act of assembly, in 1867. This
supplement, therefore, covers actually the subject-matter of
two existing acts, that of 1867, and the act to which it was
a supplement. Provisions respecting the charge for the
tuition of the graded school in Coudersport, and provisions
attaching the territory to the school district of
Coudersport, seem to have no proper relation. But it is
argued with great force and ability, by the learned counsel
for the defendants, that the means by which the general
purpose of an act of assembly is to be accomplished are
included within the subject of the act, and that they need
not be specified in the title. This is undoubtedly a correct
principle, and, if applicable here, will sustain the
provisions of the act attacked by the plaintiffs. But there
is in the section in question no allusion to the graded
school; nor is there in the original act any reference to the
territory outside the boundaries of the Coudersport school
district. The taxes to be levied on the lands in East Fork
are not directed to be...
