State ex rel. Graham v. Tibbets
Decision Date | 26 June 1897 |
Citation | 52 Neb. 228,71 N.W. 990 |
Parties | STATE EX REL. GRAHAM ET AL. v. TIBBETS ET AL. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1. Under the provisions of section 11 of article 3 of the constitution, the title to an act must fairly express the subject of legislation.
2. Where the title to a bill is to amend an existing act, or a section thereof, no amendment is permissible which is not germane to the subject-matter of the original act or section indicated.
3. An act not complete in itself, but which is clearly amendatory in its nature and scope, must set forth the section or sections as amended, and repeal the original section or sections.
4. The title to an act entitled “An act to amend sections 3, 8, 9, 11, 13, * * * 91 and 115” of a prior act, is a restricted and limited one, which it is not the province of the courts to enlarge or amend. Under such a title, the amendment of any section must be germane to the particular original section proposed to be changed.
5. Section 31 of Senate File 176 of the legislature of 1897 (Laws 1897), purporting to amend section 91, art. 11, c. 13a, Comp. St. 1895, is unconstitutional and void, because, in conflict with section 11 of article 3 of the constitution of this state, it contains a subject-matter not expressed in the title to the act, nor germane to the original section, and is amendatory of prior laws.
Application by the state, on the relation of Frank A. Graham and others, for a writ of quo warranto against Addison S. Tibbets and others, to quiet title to office. Writ allowed.M. B. Reese, Burr & Burr, and Hiland H. Wheeler, for relators.
Tibbets Bros., Morey & Ferris, and Morning & Berge, for respondents.
This was an original action of quo warranto, brought by the state, on the relation of Frank A. Graham, Richard S. Grimes, and Harry B. Vaill, against Addison S. Tibbets, John H. McClay, and Fred A. Miller, to test the right of the respondents to discharge the duties of the office of the excise board of the city of Lincoln. The information alleges, in effect, that the relator Graham is now, and for more than two years last past has been, the duly elected, qualified, and acting mayor of said city, and, by virtue of his office, is a member and chairman of the excise board of the city of Lincoln; that the relators Grimes and Vaill are the other members of such board, each having been elected in April, 1895, for the term of two years, and until the election and qualification of his successor in office, and duly qualified and entered upon the discharge of the duties and functions of such office, and no successors ever having been elected and qualified; and that the respondents, since the 19th day of April, 1897, have usurped and used and exercised the office of the excise board of the city of Lincoln, and excluded relators therefrom. The answer of the respondents substantially admits the averments contained in the information, and alleges, in effect, that the respondents, on the 23d day of March, 1897, were appointed and commissioned by Gov. Holcomb as members of the board of fire and police commissioners in and for the city of Lincoln; that each respondent accepted such appointment, and duly qualified as such commissioner, and that, since the act of the legislature of 1897 went into force, relators had no right or authority to perform the duties of the excise board of the city of Lincoln. To the answer relators demurred, and the cause has been submitted for determination.
The state legislature of 1889 passed a law, which received executive approval, entitled “An act to incorporate cities of the first class, and regulating their duties, powers, government and remedies.” Laws 1889, c. 14. The provisions of this act, with the subsequent acts amendatory thereto, govern cities of the class to which the city of Lincoln belongs. Section 13 of said act was amended in 1891 (chapter 8, Laws 1891; article 1, c. 13a, Comp. St. 1895). As thus amended, it provided that etc. It is under and by virtue of the foregoing piece of legislation that relators claim the right to discharge the duties and functions of the excise and police board of the city of Lincoln.
The respondents were appointed by the governor as members of the board of fire and police commissioners of said city, under the provisions of section 31 of the act of the legislature of 1897, known as “Senate File 176,” entitled “A bill for an act to amend sections three (3), eight (8), nine (9), eleven (11), twelve (12), thirteen (13), fourteen (14), fifteen (15), sixteen (16), seventeen (17), eighteen (18), twenty (20), twenty-one (21), twenty-six (26), twenty-eight (28), twenty-nine (29), thirty (30), thirty-one (31), thirty-three (33), thirty-seven (37), thirty-eight (38), fifty (50), sixty-four (64), sixty-five (65), sixty-seven (67), sixty-nine (69), seventy (70), seventy-one (71), seventy-eight (78), eighty (80), eighty-three (83), ninety-one (91), and one hundred and fifteen (115), chapter 13a, of article 1, of the Compiled Statutes of 1895, for the government of cities of the first class, having more than twenty-five thousand and less than one hundred thousand inhabitants, and to repeal section ten (10), and repeal said original sections and all amendments thereto, and all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act.” Section 31 of the act reads thus: ” The remainder of the section is too lengthy to reproduce here. For present purposes it is sufficient to state that it provides substantially that a majority of the board should constitute a quorum; that each commissioner, before entering upon his duties, should take and subscribe a prescribed oath of office, and give a bond in the sum of $1,000; that all the powers and duties connected with and incident to the appointment, removal, government, and discipline of the officers and members of the fire and police department of the city should be vested in and exercised by the board of fire and police commissioners; and that such board should have the exclusive control of the licensing and regulating of the sale of intoxicating liquors in such city, with a referendum clause reserving the right to have submitted, under certain conditions, the question of the licensing of the liquor traffic in such city to the qualified electors thereof. It is under the foregoing section that respondents claim to be officers, and which section relators insist is invalid and void, under section 11 of article 3 of the constitution, which declares that The constitutionality of said section 31 of the said act of 1897 is the important question presented for consideration. If said section is repugnant to the constitutional provision quoted, the demurrer to the answer of the respondents is well taken, and the writ prayed for in the relators' petition should be granted.
The eleventh section of article 3 of the state constitution has been often before the court for consideration, and the intent, scope, and object to be attained by its adoption as a part of the fundamental law has been so well and clearly stated in numerous decisions in this and other states as to render unnecessary a general discussion of the subject anew at this time. It has been uniformly decided that the provision of the constitution is mandatory, and that the courts will not declare a statute unconstitutional unless it is clearly so; furthermore,that the object of this provision concerning title to bills is to prevent obnoxious and surreptitious legislation, and not to prohibit comprehensive titles. White v. City of Lincoln, 5 Neb. 505;Paxton & Hershey Irrigating Canal & Land Co. v. Farmers' & Merchants' Irrigating & Land Co., 45 Neb. 884, 64 N. W. 343;Van...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Achenbach v. Kincaid
... ... of plurality of subjects." ( State v. Doherty, 3 ... Idaho 384, 29 P. 855; State v. Dolan, 13 Idaho 693, ... Board of Supervisors, 128 Mich. 552, 87 ... N.W. 789; State ex rel. Olson v. Board of ... Commissioners, 83 Minn. 65, 85 N.W. 830; Gage v ... constitutional requirement is met. ( State v ... Tibbets, 52 Neb. 228, 66 Am. St. 492, 71 N.W. 990; ... State ex rel. Comstock ... ...
-
State v. Hall
... ... Sprague, 95 N.W. 46; ... Preston v. Stover, 97 N.W. 812; State ex rel ... Graham v. Tibbets, 71 N.W. 990; Commissioners v. Stone, ... 7 Wyo. 280) ... ...
-
South v. Fish
... ... This is ... a contest between the old state board of health appointed ... under section 2047 of the Kentucky Statutes ... therein specified. While not directly in point, State v ... Tibbets, 52 Neb. 228, 71 N.W. 990, 66 Am.St.Rep. 499, ... Trumble v. Trumble, ... ...
-
Webster v. City of Hastings
... ... See People v. McCallum, ... 1 Neb. 182; State v. Stewart, 52 Neb. 243; Ballou v ... Black, 17 Neb. 391 ... 384; Touzalin v. City of ... Omaha, 25 Neb. 817; State v. Tibbets", 52 Neb ... 228; Douglas County v. Hayes, 52 Neb. 191 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Neb. Const. art. III § III-14 Bills and Resolutions Read By Title; Printing; Vote For Final Passage; Bills to Contain One Subject; Amended Section to Be Set Forth; Signing of Bills
...is to prevent subjects of different nature from being inserted under color of amendment. State ex rel. Graham v. Tibbets, 52 Neb. 228, 71 N.W. 990 Provisions relating to title should be liberally construed to admit insertion in act of all provisions which, though not specifically expressed ......