Roberts v. Spray
| Decision Date | 06 November 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 5325,5325 |
| Citation | 71 Ariz. 60,223 P.2d 808 |
| Parties | ROBERTS et al. v. SPRAY et al., Members of Board of Sup'rs of Pinal County, et al. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Tom Fulbright, of Florence, Stokes & Scanland, of Coolidge, Ellis & Walker, of Eloy, Allan K. Perry, of Phoenix, for appellants.
Preston F. Sult, Co. Atty., Florence, Reed & Wood, Sp. Counsel, Coolidge, for appellees.
Plaintiffs-appellants herein, brought this action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, A.C.A.1939, § 27-701 et seq., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against defendants-appellees, members of the board of supervisors of Pinal County, and Fred O. Wilson as Attorney General of the state, seeking to have declared unconstitutional House Bill No. 170 enacted as chapter 27 of the Session Laws of 1949 and known as the 'Hospital District Act of 1949.'
Appellants allege in their complaint that the Act violates the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States and article 2, section 4 of the constitution of the state of Arizona because the provisions thereof are so vague, ambiguous, indefinite and uncertain as to be unintelligible and unenforcible in that it is impossible to determine from the Act
(a) Whether the hospital district may itself operate a hospital or must lease the same to a non-profit corporation;
(b) For what purposes bonds of the hospital district may be issued, and particularly whether such bonds may be issued to provide funds with which to operate a hospital;
(c) For which purposes district taxes may be levied, and particularly whether such taxes may be levied to provide funds with which to operate the hospital;
(d) How the affairs of the hospital district shall be settled in the event of its dissolution, particularly in the liquidation of its debts and in the disposal of the surplus property or proceeds, if any, after payment of such debts;
(e) Who are qualified electors;
(f) Whether or not the hospital district is a tax-levying improvement district within the meaning of article 13, section 7 of the constitution of Arizona.
Appellants further allege that said Act violates sections 3 and 9 of article 9 of the constitution of Arizona in that said Act does not distinctly state the tax imposed nor the object for which said tax shall be applied. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court thereafter granted the motion to dismiss and entered its judgment that appellants 'take nothing by reason of their complaint.' From this judgment an appeal was taken to this court and the following assignments of error are presented for our consideration:
1. The superior court erred in dismissing the complaint, because it raised a question which should have been decided for the guidance of the board of supervisors of Pinal County and the action should therefore have been determined upon its merits.
2. The superior court erred in dismissing the complaint because it affirmatively appears therefrom that the 'Hospital District Act of 1949' is so indefinite, uncertain and ambiguous that it is incapable of being intelligently administered and is, therefore, unconstitutional.
3. The superior court erred in dismissing the complaint because it affirmatively appears therefrom that the statute, the validity of which is here challenged, is in contravention of and repugnant to section 2 article 7 of the Arizona Constitution.
We fail to perceive any merit whatever to appellants' first assignment of error. The question of whether the Hospital District Act of 1949 violated either the 14th amendment to the constitution of the United States and section 4, article 2 or sections 3 and 9 of article 9 of the Arizona Constitution for any of the reasons alleged in the complaint was squarely presented to the trial court on the motion to dismiss. The Act was made a part of the complaint. The motion to dismiss raised the sufficiency of the complaint and the whole thereof to state a claim, admitting for the purposes of the motion the truth of the facts alleged therein. If the trial court had found the Act violated either one of the provisions of the state constitution as alleged in the complaint or the 14th amendment of the constitution of the United States it would have been the mandatory duty of the trial court to deny the motion to dismiss. Before it could lawfully enter its order to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that it failed to state a claim it had to find as a matter of law, and as a condition precedent, that the Act violated neither of the provisions of the state or Federal Constitution alleged in the complaint but that on the other hand it was in all respects thereto constitutional. By granting appellees' motion to dismiss, it in effect said the Act is neither so vague, ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain in any of the particulars alleged in the complaint as to be unenforcible nor does it in any manner run counter to the provisions of sections 3 and 9 of article 9 of the state constitution.
In the absence of findings of fact or conclusions of law the supreme court must presume that the conclusions on every necessary issue supported the judgment. Morgan v. Krook, 36 Ariz. 133, 283 P. 287.
Assignment No. 2 raises the question of whether or not the Act is sufficiently definite, certain and clear to be capable of intelligent administration. Counsel for appellants upon further study of the Act after filing their complaint have now reached the conclusion that the particulars hereinabove set forth haec verba under the designations (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) in which it is alleged the Act is so indefinite, uncertain and ambiguous as to be unintelligible and unenforcible, should not have been incorporated in the complaint for the reason that they now believe the portions of the Act to which they were directed are sufficiently and certain to be capable of intelligent administration. They still assert, however, that the Act is indefinite, uncertain and ambiguous as to who are qualified electors and in assignment 3 they have raised here for the first time the point that the Act is in contravention of section 2, article 7 of the Arizona Constitution which prescribes the qualifications of voters upon any question which may be submitted to a vote of the people.
There is no doubt in our minds that under former decisions of this court such a question may be raised here although it was not raised or suggested in the trial court. Our opinion in the case of Town of South Tucson v. Board of Supervisors of Pima County, 52 Ariz. 575, 84 P.2d 581, fully supports this view, citing cases.
For reasons of brevity and clarity we believe it best to discuss the questions raised by assignments 2 and 3 together. Before doing this, however, even though appellants abandon their position as set forth in subdivisions (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) of their complaint, upon suggestion of appellees, we will advert to them briefly in order that those who may be charged with the administration of the Act may entertain no doubt as to its meaning. We will take them up seriatim.
Section 8(e)1 of the Act so clearly states what the board shall do in regard to the operation of the hospital that it is not even subject to judicial construction. Industrial Commission v. Price, 37 Ariz. 245, 292 P. 1099. In clear unambiguous language section 8(e)1 states that: 'The board of directors shall lease the hospital and its equipment for such term or period as it shall deem reasonable but not less than five (5) nor more than ten (10) years to a corporation not for pecuniary profit, duly organized under the laws of the state of Arizona for the purpose of conducting a hospital; provided that the rental to be received upon such lease shall be upon such terms as will provide a fair return to the district on its investment and shall be sufficient to meet the payments of principal and interest of any bonds issued under the terms of this Act, and such amounts as may be necessary to meet the expenses of the district. * * *'
Nothing remains to be done but to enforce the law as written.
According to the record the bill as originally presented to the legislature provided for the establishment, maintenance and operation of one or more hospitals situated within the limits of the District. This was deleted from the bill by the legislature and the board of directors was authorized only to lease such hospital and its facilities. This fact is a proper consideration in determining the legislative intent where the meaning of the language used is obscure. The board of directors has only such powers as are expressly or by necessary implication granted to it by the provisions of the Act.
The answer is that if a board has no authority to operate the hospital it inevitably follows that bonds may not issue for its operation. Under the provisions of section 10 of the Act bonds may be issued by the district for the purpose of carrying out any of the provisions of the Act. The board having no authority under its provisions to operate the hospital, bonds may not be issued therefor.
Again we state that if the board may not operate the hospital it follows that taxes may not be levied for its operation. As stated in the brief of counsel for appellees the Act creating the hospital district provides how and for what purpose taxes may be levied, specifically limiting the amount of the levy to take care of items set up in the budget presented by the board of directors of the district to the board of supervisors. The levy is therein limited to a tax 'sufficient in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Seyrafi
...and unless its invalidity is established beyond a reasonable doubt it will be declared constitutional. Roberts v. Spray, 71 Ariz. 60, 69, 223 P.2d 808, 813-14 (1950) (citations omitted); Black & White Taxicab Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 25 Ariz. 381, 218 P. 139 (1923); Green v. Frazier, 253 U.......
-
Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co.
...the Act in the light of the Constitution and adopt the construction which harmonizes with constitutional provisions. Roberts v. Spray, 71 Ariz. 60, 70, 223 P.2d 808 (1950); Goodyear Aircraft Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 62 Ariz. 398, 407, 158 P.2d 511 Protection of the rights of individu......
-
Gault, Application of
...326 P.2d 348. In short, our duty is to reconcile the language of a statute with the constitutional provisions if possible. Roberts v. Spray, 71 Ariz. 60, 223 P.2d 808. Although the constitutional guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of ......
-
State v. Seyrafi
...and unless its invalidity is established beyond a reasonable doubt it will be declared constitutional.Roberts v. Spray, 71 Ariz. 60, 69, 223 P.2d 808, 813-14 (1950) (citations omitted); Black & White Taxicab Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 25 Ariz. 381, 218 P. 139 (1923); Green v. Frazier, 253 U.S......