State ex rel. Foster v. Naftalin
| Decision Date | 20 January 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 36749,36749 |
| Citation | 74 N.W.2d 249,246 Minn. 181 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. Charles FOSTER, Respondent, v. Arthur NAFTALIN, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A bill passed by the legislature does not become a law until all constitutional prerequisites respecting manner of enactment have been complied with.
2. Minnesota is committed to the 'journal entry rule,' under which journals of the legislature may be examined in order to ascertain whether the constitutional prerequisites to enactment of a law have been complied with.
3. Where a bill is amended by either house of the legislature and the amendment is not included in the bill signed by the governor, the variance generally is held to be material. The evidence in this case establishes that the variance between the bill passed by the legislature and that signed by the governor is a material variance.
4. Where a bill fails to become a law by virtue of a material variance between the bill passed by the legislature and the bill signed by the governor, a subsequently passed law covering the same material as that part of the invalid act to which the variance relates cannot bring to life a bill that never became law.
5. Where there is a material variance between a bill passed by the legislature and that approved by the governor, the entire bill is void. The rule of nonseverability adopted in Bull v. King, 205 Minn. 427, 286 N.W. 311, and Freeman v. Goff, 206 Minn. 49, 287 N.W. 238, reexamined and adhered to.
Miles Lord, Atty. Gen., Lowell J. Grady, Deputy Atty. Gen., Joseph J. Bright, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellants.
Harry H. Peterson, Leonard Frank, Minneapolis, for respondent.
This proceeding originally was commenced as an action for a declaratory judgment seeking a determination of the constitutionality of L.1955, c. 857, and an injunction restraining defendants from acting thereunder. While a motion for a temporary injunction was pending, the parties, by stipulation, converted the action into a proceeding in quo warranto for the purpose of speedily testing the right of defendants Arthur Naftalin, Arthur Hansen, and Morris Hursh to hold and exercise respectively the offices of secretary of the State Executive Council, secretary of the State Investment Council, and secretary of the State Board of Pardons. The trial court determined that the act was unconstitutional, and this appeal followed.
There is no dispute as to the facts. L.1955, c. 857, was first introduced in the house as House File 1233 on March 7, 1955. 1 The bill was a comprehensive reorganization of many of the departments of government. After its introduction it was reported back by the committee on civil administration with certain amendments with its recommendation that it pass. 2 As so reported for passage, article X read in part as follows: 3
'Section 1 Subdivision 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section and except as to other powers and duties of the state auditor, which by this act are transferred to, vested in, and imposed upon other state departments or agencies, all the powers and duties now vested in, and imposed upon the state auditor by statute are hereby transferred to, vested in, and imposed upon the commissioner of administration.
'Subd. 2 The state auditor shall continue to exercise the rights, powers and duties which heretofore have been or any hereafter be by law vested in, and imposed upon him relating to certifying the state tax to the several county auditors, relating to certifying the tax necessary to be levied in connection with any loans made by the state board of investment as heretofore constituted or in respect to any obligations purchased by such state board of investment, or in any other way relating to the certification and levy of taxes for any purpose for and on behalf of the state of Minnesota.
'Subd. 3 Subject to the provisions of this act and other applicable laws, Minnesota Statutes 1953, Section 6.02 shall continue in full force and effect.
'Subd. 4 The auditor shall continue as a member of the state executive council, the land exchange commission, and the state board of investment as heretofore constituted.'
The recommendation of the committee was adopted by the house. 4 Article X of the bill thereafter was amended as follow: 5
'In Article X, strike Section 1 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
As so amended, it was passed by the house on April 15, 1955. 6
Insofar as the text of the bill as so amended and approved by the house is concerned, it is of little importance here except to indicate what the position of the house was in the enactment of this bill.
The bill was sent to the senate on April 16. It was considered by the senate as a special order on April 19, at which time 11 amendments were proposed and passed, including an amendment to article X, 7 which was as follows:
'In Article X * * * strike all of Section 1 as amended and insert in lieu thereof the following:
(Italics supplied.)
This amendment will be referred to hereafter as amendment No. 1.
Immediately after the adoption of amendment No. 1, article X of the bill was further amended as follows:
'In Art. X, strike Section 1, as amended, and insert in lieu thereof the following:
(Italics supplied.)
This amendment will be referred to hereafter as amendment No. 2.
The house refused to concur in the senate amendments 8 and requested that a conference committee be appointed. Pursuant to that request a conference committee was appointed by both houses, after which the conference agreed to certain amendments not pertinent here, 9 and thereafter the house accepted and passed the bill with article X as amended by the senate. 10
Due to a mistake on the part of the enrolling clerk, or someone else, the bill as transmitted to and signed by the governor included amendment No. 1 instead of amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 1 was never passed by the legislature.
The trial court held that the variance between the bill as passed by the legislature, containing amendment No. 2, and the bill as presented to the governor, containing amendment No. 1, was a material variance and that, as a result, the entire bill failed to become a law and is void.
It is the position of appellants (1) that the variance is not a material variance, and (2) that, if it is a material variance, § 1 of article IX, 11 in which the variance occurs, is severable from the rest of the act.
1. A determination of the issues involved in this case requires an interpretation of Minn.Const. art. 4, § 11, M.S.A., which, as far as material here, reads:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Huff
...494, 498, 250 N.W. 729 (1933); Perfection T. &. R. Co. v. Kellogg-MacKay, 194 Iowa 523, 530, 187 N.W. 32 (1922); State v. Naftalin, 246 Minn. 181, 74 N.W.2d 249, 266 (1956); Beloit Corp. v. Department of Industry, Lab. & H. Rel., 63 Wis.2d 23, 216 N.W.2d 233, 238 (1974); 20 Am.Jur.2d, Court......
-
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc.
...facts before court and therefore are individual views of author of opinion and not binding in subsequent cases. State ex rel. Foster v. Naftalin, 246 Minn. 181, 74 N.W.2d 249. Black's Law Dictionary 454 (6th ed.1990); see 20 Am.Jur.2d Courts § 39 (defining dicta as "expressions of opinion w......
-
State v. Thonesavanh
...that the statute is ambiguous, this broad issue is not before the court today and is therefore dicta. See State ex rel. Foster v. Naftalin, 246 Minn. 181, 74 N.W.2d 249, 266 (1956) ("Dicta ... generally is considered to be expressions in a court's opinion which go beyond the facts before th......
-
Ries v. State, A16-0220
...go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are the individual views of the author of the opinion." State ex rel. Foster v. Naftalin , 246 Minn. 181, 74 N.W.2d 249, 266 (1956). Statements and conclusions based on the facts and legal issues before the court, in contrast, are not dicta......