Richmond v. Lay

Decision Date01 November 1935
PartiesRICHMOND et al. v. LAY.
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Franklin County.

Suit by Piney E. Lay against James H. Richmond and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Reversed with directions.

Bailey P. Wootton, Atty. Gen., and William R. Attkisson, Asst. Atty Gen., for appellants.

Woodrow Burchett, of Prestonsburg, for appellee.

STITES Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Franklin circuit court under which the appellee, a school teacher, was granted a mandatory injunction requiring the appellants, who are, respectively the superintendent of public instruction and the director of certification of the department of education, to issue to her a teacher's certificate extending her present certificate, which expired June 30, 1935, for life. The only authority for the issuance of a certificate for life is to be found in chapter 13 of the Acts of the General Assembly passed at its special session in 1934. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that chapter 13 is unconstitutional and invalid (1) because it violates section 51 of the Constitution of Kentucky, and (2) because the act is not within the scope of the Governor's proclamation calling the special session and is therefore invalid under the provisions of section 80 of the Constitution of Kentucky.

The essential part of chapter 13 is contained in section 1, which provides:

"That certificates issued to any teacher, which certificate expires in the year 1934, shall be extended one year beyond its expiration; and such extension shall be made or issued by the department of certification of the State Department of Education upon application from the teacher, together with a signed statement from the superintendent of the county or city in which said teacher making such application taught, certifying that said teacher had taught either in the school years 1932-1933 or the school years 1933-1934; provided, however, such application shall be accompanied by a fee of Two Dollars ($2.00), to be collected by the Department of Education and delivered to the State Treasurer to be credited to the General Expenditure Fund.
" Any teacher who has taught for more than twenty years prior to the effective date of this Act, shall have a certificate issued for life.
"All laws or parts of laws in conflict herewith are hereby repealed."

If we are to sustain all or any part of section 1 of chapter 13, it must be because the section falls under the following clause of the proclamation convening the General Assembly and providing for its consideration, amongst others, of the following subjects: "To enact such measures as will provide sufficient revenue to carry on all proper functions of the State Government, including common schools and higher institutions of learning, and to provide necessary funds for relief of the unemployed and distressed of the State; and to repeal any laws in conflict with such measures." Acts 1934, Ex. Sess., p. VIII.

Section 80 of the Constitution authorizes the Governor to convene the General Assembly on extraordinary occasions, but provides: "When he shall convene the general assembly it shall be by proclamation, stating the subjects to be considered, and no other shall be considered."

The purpose of this provision is to give notice to the public of the subjects to be considered, in order that persons interested may be present if they desire, and also it is a check upon legislative action, that no matters outside the proclamation shall be acted on.

So much of chapter 13 as authorizes the extension of certificates upon the payment of a fee of $2 may fairly be said to come within the intendment of the call, as a revenue measure. Talbott v. Jones, 258 Ky. 449, 80 S.W.2d 566. It will be observed, however,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Geo. B. Wallace, Inc. v. Pfost
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 18, 1937
    ... ... use excise tax inapplicable to intrastate business which ... already bears ad valorem taxation and other impositions for ... the same or similar purposes, and there is no unlawful ... discrimination against interstate commerce in so doing. ( ... Vaughan v. City of Richmond, 165 Va. 145, 181 S.E ... 372; Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wall. (U.S.) 148, 19 L.Ed ... 387; Doscher v. Query, 21 F.2d 521, 525; State Tax ... Commrs. v. Jackson, 283 U.S. 527, 51 S.Ct. 540, 75 L.Ed ... 1248, 73 A. L. R. 1464.) ... The ... state may levy a different tax on the same ... ...
  • Stickler v. Higgins
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • June 18, 1937
    ... ... why that may be done before the extraordinary session meets ... applies, as we conclude, with equal force when the ... proclamation submitting the additional subjects is issued ... after such session begins. Each of them hold substantially ... with our recent holding in the case of Richmond v ... Lay, 261 Ky. 138, 87 S.W.2d 134, 135, wherein we ... expressed our view as to the purpose that the convention had ... in mind in framing section 80, supra, of our Constitution. We ... said therein: "The purpose of this provision [the last ... sentence of section 80, supra] is to give ... ...
  • Jaksha v. State, 86-014
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • May 2, 1986
    ...a check upon legislative action, that no matters outside the proclamation shall be acted on." [Citing and quoting from Richmond v. Lay, 261 Ky. 138, 87 S.W.2d 134 (1935).] 269 Ky. at 264, 106 S.W.2d at Another reason given in the cases cited, and others that might be cited, is, that it was ......
  • Gallagher v. Ping's Trustees
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • November 1, 1935
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT