Simpson v. Matthews
Decision Date | 13 July 1931 |
Docket Number | 109 |
Citation | 40 S.W.2d 991,184 Ark. 213 |
Parties | SIMPSON v. MATTHEWS |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; Richard M. Mann, Judge; reversed.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Tom F. Digby, for appellant.
Chas W. Mehaffy and Rose, Heminqway, Cantrell & Loughborough, for appellees.
This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court upholding the validity of a statute permitting adjoining landowners to form an improvement district and to condemn land adjacent to a State highway in order to construct a reservoir for the alleged protection thereof. No separate or particular statement of facts is necessary, for the reason that, on the consideration of the motion for a rehearing, the court has concluded that this case should be decided upon the single point whether the act is unconstitutional as being local or special act.
In construing article 5, § 25, of our Constitution, this court has uniformly held that the Legislature is the exclusive judge whether a provision by general law is possible under the provision of the Constitution to the effect that no special law shall be enacted in cases where a general law can be made applicable.
Amendment No. 14 was initiated by the people and adopted as a part of the Constitution at the general election in 1926. It reads as follows:
The Legislature of 1931 passed act No. 108, entitled, "An act to grant to county courts, in counties having a population of 75,000 or more, the right to condemn lands for the protection of public roads."
The preamble and so much of § 1 as we deem necessary for a proper consideration of the issue raised by the appeal are as follows:
etc.
The remainder of § 1 and §§ 2, 3 and 4 relate to the method of procedure in the premises. Section 5 relates to the method of procedure in the premises. Section 5 provides that the act shall only apply to counties which now or hereafter may have a population of 75,000 inhabitants according to the last federal census.
It is manifest that, when the amendment prohibiting the passage of special acts by the Legislature is considered with the provision of the Constitution above referred to, it was intended that the action of the Legislature shall be subject to judicial review. We do not think that it was intended to do away with the classification of counties, cities and towns according to population or the topography of the country where such classification rests upon substantial differences in situation and needs. The amendment was intended to prevent arbitrary classification based on no reasonable relation between the subject-matter of the limitation and classification made. In determining whether a law was general or local, the Legislature might still make the classification where it was appropriate and germane to the subject and was based upon substantial differences which make one situation different from another. The classification of counties and municipalities is legitimate when population or other basis of classification bears a reasonable relation to the subject of the legislation, and the judgment of the Legislature in the matter should control unless the classification is arbitrary or is manifestly made for the purpose of evading the Constitution. If the judgment of the Legislature must control in all cases, the amendment could serve no purpose, and the people might just as well not have initiated and adopted it.
In State ex rel. Richards v. Hammer, 42 N.J.L. 435, the subject of statutory classification was thoroughly considered. The court said:
Again the subject was comprehensively discussed by Mr. Justice Mitchell for the Supreme Court of Minnesota in State ex rel. Douglas v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531, 79 N.W. 535. The learned justice said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shaw v. Fox
... ... 874, 31 S.W.2d 292; ... State v. Riedel (Mo. Sup.) 46 S.W.2d 131; ... Anderson v. Board of Public Instruction (Fla.) 136 ... So. 334; Simpson v. Matthews, 184 Ark. 213, 40 ... S.W.2d 991; State v. McCann (Mo. App.) 47 S.W.2d 95; ... State v. Clark, 275 Mo. 95, 204 S.W. 1090; ... Excise ... ...
-
Beaumont v. Adkisson
...germane to the subject and based upon substantial differences which make one situation different from another. Simpson v. Matthews, 184 Ark. 213, 40 S.W.2d 991. The judgment of the General Assembly in making statutory classifications should be controlling, unless the classification is clear......
-
Gallas v. Alexander
...and the people might just as well not have initiated and adopted it." Id. at 115, 943 S.W.2d 225 (quoting Simpson v. Matthews, 184 Ark. 213, 216, 40 S.W.2d 991, 992 (1931)). Certainly, our case law supports that conclusion. See, e.g., Weiss v. Geisbauer, 363 Ark. 508, 215 S.W.3d 628 (2005) ......
-
Mankin v. Dean
...impact of the statute must be reasonably related to the purpose of the law. Webb v. Adams, 180 Ark. 713, 23 S.W.2d 617; Simpson v. Matthews, 184 Ark. 213, 40 S.W.2d 991. Thus the legislature may restrict the city manager form of government to the larger cities, as there is less need for the......