Shaw v. Grumbine

Citation278 P. 311,1929 OK 116,137 Okla. 95
Decision Date12 March 1929
Docket NumberCase Number: 20156
PartiesSHAW, State Auditor, v. GRUMBINE.
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
Syllabus

¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Judgment--Contents of "Judgment Roll"--Scope of Review on Transcript of Record.

The petition, the process, the return, the subsequent pleadings, orders and (verdict in jury trial) judgment constitute the

Judgment roll. Errors which appear in the judgment roll may be brought to this court for review by transcript of the record properly certified to by the court clerk.

2. Pleading--Nature of Motion for Judgment on Pleadings.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings is in effect a general demurrer.

3. Pleading -- Answer Liberally Construed Upon Demurrer.

On demurrer to an answer as defective, in that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense, the pleading must be liberally construed, and all its allegations for the purposes of the demurrer taken as true.

4. Constitutional Law--Duty of Legislature to Enact Laws to Carry into Effect Provisions of Constitution.

Under section 45, article 5, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, it is the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as are necessary for carrying into effect the provisions of the Constitution.

5. Constitutional Law -- Construction of Constitution--Intent of Framers and of People Adopting Instrument--Unambiguous Provisions.

The object of construction, applied to a Constitution, is to give effect to the intent of its framers, and of the people in adopting it. This intent is to be found in the instrument itself; and when the text of a constitutional provision is not ambiguous, the courts, in giving construction thereto, are not at liberty to search for its meaning beyond the instrument.

6. Same--Statutes--Contracts--Words Given Meaning Apparent on Face of Instrument Where no Ambiguity.

To get at the thought or meaning expressed in a statute, a contract, or a Constitution, the first resort, in all cases, is to the natural signification of the words, in the order of grammatical arrangement in which the framers of the instrument have placed them. If the words convey a definite meaning, which involves no absurdity nor any contradiction of other parts of the instrument, then that meaning apparent on the face of the instrument must be accepted, and neither the courts nor the Legislature have the right to add to it or take from it.

7. States--Legislature--Constitutional Provision as to Number and Remuneration of Employees of Legislature.

Section 49, article 5, of the Constitution, which declares that the Legislature shall not increase the number or emoluments of its employees, or the employees of either House, except by a general law, which shall not take effect during the term at which such increase is made, means exactly what it says, and applies to the general, usual, customary, and ordinary employees of the Legislature functioning as the lawmaking department of the state, such as the framers of the Constitution had in mind at the time the same was drafted and the people had in mind when they adopted the same, and the number or emoluments of such employees, or the employees of either House, shall not be increased, except by general law, which shall not take effect during the term at which such increase is made.

8. Same -- Authority for Additional Employees Needed by Houses of Legislature Functioning as Investigating or Impeachment Body.

The inhibition of section 49 of article 5 of the Constitution was intended by the framers, and the people in adopting the same, that it should apply to the Legislature as a lawmaking body, and does not prohibit the Legislature, acting in an inquisitorial and investigating capacity, or either House, or the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment, in performing such duties as may be enjoined by the Constitution, from employing such employees as may be necessary to the proper discharge of such duties, and in addition to such as may be provided for by law, enacted in accordance with said section for the assistance of the Legislature as a lawmaking body.

9. Same--Existence of Emergency Rendering Additional Employees Necessary a Question for Legislature Alone.

It is for the legislative and not the judicial department of the state government to determine and declare whether or not an emergency exists by reason whereof it is necessary for the Legislature to employ additional employees in order that it may properly carry on in its investigating and inquisitorial capacity and that the Senate while sitting as a Court of Impeachment may properly function.

10. Same -- Statutes -- Requisites of Valid Appropriation Act.

A valid appropriation under the provisions of our Constitution must distinctly specify the sum and the object to which it is to be applied.

11. Officers--Authority Conferred by Law and to Be Exercised in Manner Prescribed by Law.

Public officers have only such authority as is conferred upon them by law, and such authority must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law.

12. States -- Authority for Additional Employees of Legislature Rendered Necessary by Houses Functioning as Investigating or Impeachment Body -- Necessary Enactment by Legislature.

The Legislature, or either House, cannot delegate to a committee thereof the power to fix the number or emoluments of employees employed by the Legislature acting in an inquisitorial and investigating capacity, or to either House, in performing such duties, or to the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment, but such employees must be employed under authority of law enacted by the Legislature, and the emoluments or salary of such employees must be fixed by the Legislature.

13. Officers--Constitutional Provisions as to Impeachment and Removal--Legislature Empowered to Appropriate Funds Necessary to Carry Provisions into Effect.

Article 8 of the state Constitution relates to the impeachment and removal from office of the officers therein designated, and section 6 of said article declares that the Legislature shall pass such laws as are necessary for carrying into effect the provisions of this article, and under the provisions thereof the Legislature has the power and it is its duty to appropriate such funds by special appropriation bills as may be necessary to carry into effect the provisions of said article.

14. States--Legislature -- Necessary Legislative Enactments to Authorize Payment of Salaries of Legislative Employees.

Under section 56 of article 5 of the Constitution, before the State Auditor can legally audit and draw vouchers or warrants in payment of salaries to employees of the Legislature, or the House of Representatives, or the Senate, or any legal committee of said House or Senate, or the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment, there must be in force some law of this state authorizing the employment of such employees and fixing the amount of their emolument or salary, and an appropriation, either general or special, to pay such employees, and such bill, if it affects employees other than those included in the general appropriation bills authorized by the Constitution, must embrace but one subject, which must be clearly expressed therein.

Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; T. G. Chambers, Judge.

Action by Grant B. Grumbine against A. S. J. Shaw, State Auditor. From the judgment, defendant brings error; plaintiff filing cross-petition in error. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Edwin Dabney, Atty. Gen., and Wm. L. Murphy, Asst. Atty. Gen., E. P. Hill, special counsel, for plaintiff in error.

Porter H. Morgan, for defendant in error.

SWINDALL, J.

¶1 This action comes to this court by duly certified transcript from the district court of Oklahoma county, wherein Grant B. Grumbine was plaintiff and A. S. J. Shaw, as State Auditor, was defendant, and the parties for convenience in this appeal will be referred to as the plaintiff and defendant.

¶2 The questions for determination in this case are: Can the Legislature, during a session, by joint resolution or emergency law, authorize the employment and employ employees to serve at such session in any capacity, under section 49, article 5, of the Constitution, which declares that the Legislature shall not increase the number or emolument of its employees or the employees of either House, except by a general law, which shall not take effect during the term at which such increase is made, and can the Legislature employ employees, by joint resolution or emergency law enacted for that purpose, to assist the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment, and during the session at which the Senate sits as such court?

¶3 These propositions are presented to this court by the judgment roll in this case, consisting of the petition, answer, reply, motion for judgment on the pleadings, and judgment and decree of the court.

¶4 The plaintiff for his cause of action against the defendant alleged and stated, in substance: That the defendant is now, and since the 10th day of January, 1927, has been, the duly elected, qualified, and acting Auditor of the state of Oklahoma, and that under and by virtue of the official position the defendant holds and occupies it is his duty to prepare, audit, and draw vouchers or warrants in payment of salaries and emoluments to all employees employed by the House of Representatives and the State Senate, and that by virtue of the duties of his office he is required to prepare, draw, and audit only such warrants and vouchers for such employees as are legally and lawfully employed and for such amounts, as salaries and emoluments to such employees, as are by law allowed or authorized.

¶5 Plaintiff further alleges that on the 8th day of January, 1929, the Legislature of the state of Oklahoma duly assembled in regular session, and such Legislature is now in session, and that the members of the House of Representatives and the members of the State Senate have wrongfully and unlawfully and in violation of section 49, article...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Inst. for Responsible Alcohol Policy v. State ex rel. Alcoholic Beverage Laws Enforcement Comm'n
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • January 22, 2020
    ...... ¶12 The objective of construing the Oklahoma Constitution is to give effect to the framers' intent, as well as the people adopting it. Shaw v. Grumbine , 1929 OK 116, ¶ 30, 278 P. 311, 315, 137 Okla. 95, 278 P. 311. When a challenge is limited to the Oklahoma Constitution, the Court ......
  • Jones v. Freeman
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • October 12, 1943
    ......S. J. Shaw, as State Treasurer of Oklahoma, C. C. Childers, as State Auditor of Oklahoma, Wm. L. Cheatham, as Chairman of the State Election Board of Oklahoma, ...v. Shaw, State Auditor, 122 Okla. 211, 253 P. 500, 50 A. L. R. 1232; Dyer v. Shaw et al., 139 Okla. 165, 281 P. 776; Shaw v. Grumbine, 137 Okla. 95, 278 P. 311; State ex rel. Telle v. Carter, State Auditor, et al., 170 Okla. 50, 39 P.2d 134; Shaw v. Carter, State Auditor, 148 Okla. ......
  • Latting v. Cordell
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • August 19, 1946
    ......Shaw v. Grumbine, 137 Okla. 95, 278 P. 311.         ¶21 The petitioner argues that the sections of our Constitution now before us had their ......
  • Tex. Co. v. State ex rel. Coryell
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • February 18, 1947
    ....... . Meaning of Constitution, apparent on face, must be accepted." Shaw v. Crumbine, 137 Okla. 95. 278 P. 311; State v. Millar, 21 Okla. 448, 96 P. 747.         ¶7 The trial court erred in construing the further ......
  • 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