State ex rel. Custer County Agricultural Society And Live Stock Exchange v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 11 October 1892
• Citation: 53 N.W. 213,35 Neb. 401
• Parties: STATE OF NEBRASKA, EX REL. CUSTER COUNTY AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY AND LIVE STOCK EXCHANGE, v. JOHN ROBINSON ET AL
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

53 N.W. 213

35 Neb. 401

STATE OF NEBRASKA, EX REL. CUSTER COUNTY AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY AND LIVE STOCK EXCHANGE, v. JOHN ROBINSON ET AL

Supreme Court of Nebraska

October 11, 1892

ORIGINAL application for mandamus.

Peremptory writ of mandamus ALLOWED.

J. S Kirkpatrick, and Sullivan & Gutterson, for relator.

E. P Campbell, County Attorney, contra.

OPINION

POST, J.

This is an original application for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents, who comprise the board of supervisors of Custer county, to include in their estimate of expenses for the year 1892 an amount sufficient to pay to the relator three cents for each inhabitant of said county for the years 1891 and 1892 in accordance with the provisions of section 12, chapter 2, Compiled Statutes, entitled "Agriculture." It appears from the allegations of the petition, none of which are denied, that the relator is an agricultural society duly and legally organized in conformity with the statute in question, and that it has complied with all the requirements of law to entitle it to demand from the county the sum of money provided for by the section above referred to. The first objection raised by the respondents is that the law is unconstitutional for the reason that the title of the original act is not sufficiently comprehensive to include the section under consideration, which provides for payment out of the county general fund to county agricultural societies complying with the requirement thereof, a sum in each year equal to three cents for each inhabitant of the several counties. The act in question was passed by the territorial legislature in the year 1866 and at the time of its passage contained the features which it is now claimed render it unconstitutional and void. Although it has been amended frequently it is conceded that the amendments are not material to the questions raised and need not for that reason be noticed. The provisions of the constitution with reference to titles of acts have no application to laws then existing. It was expressly provided by the constitution of 1866, section 1, article 11, that laws then in force should remain in force until repealed or amended by the legislature, and the same provision is found in section 1, article 16, of our present constitution.

Second--It is urged as an objection to the law that it contravenes section 15, article 3, of the constitution, which provides that "The legislature shall not pass local or special laws * * * granting to any corporation, association, or individual any special or exclusive privilege, immunity, or franchise whatever." We are unable to perceive wherein the law is susceptible of such a construction. The limitation contained in the above section of the constitution was evidently intended as a remedy for the evil of special legislation and cannot by any reasonable or natural construction be held to apply to the act under consideration. It has been frequently held by this court that a law which is general and uniform throughout the state, and operates alike upon all persons or localities which come within the relations and circumstances provided for, is not objectionable to the constitution or wanting in uniformity. ( State v. Berka, 20 Neb. 375, ...