State ex rel. Ham v. Brock

• Citation: 61 So. 646,180 Ala. 505
• Parties: STATE ex rel. HAM v. BROCK, Clerk of Court.
• Decision Date: 14 February 1913
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

61 So. 646

180 Ala. 505

STATE ex rel. HAM v. BROCK, Clerk of Court.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 14, 1913

Appeal from Circuit Court, Coffee County; H.A. Pearce, Judge.

Mandamus by the State, on the relation of J.N. Ham, against S.H Brock, Clerk of Court. From an order denying the application for the writ, relator appeals. Affirmed.

W.W Sanders, of Elba, for appellant.

MAYFIELD J.

This is an appeal by the petitioner, Ham, from an order of the circuit court denying his application for a writ of mandamus to compel the clerk of the circuit court of Coffee county to issue a warrant against the county of Coffee for the payment of salary alleged to be due the petitioner as judge of the county court.

The writ in our opinion was properly denied by the judge of the circuit court for the reason assigned--that the act creating the county court and providing for the appointment of a judge thereof and for the payment of his salary was repealed by a local act of the Legislature (Local Acts 1911, p. 30). It is conceded by the petitioner that if the repealing act is a valid law--that is, if it was constitutionally enacted--the writ was properly denied; and, on the other hand, it is conceded that, if the act was not constitutionally enacted, then the writ should have been awarded.

The grounds assigned for the unconstitutionality of the local act are (1) that the notice given of the intention to apply for the passage of the act was not sufficient to comply with section 106 of the Constitution; (2) that the title of the bill or act is violative of section 45 of the Constitution; (3) that the act is violative of sections 42 and 139 of the Constitution, in that it attempts to delegate powers essentially judicial to executive officers or agencies; and (4) that it violates section 171 of the Constitution, in that it abolishes a court without conferring its jurisdiction upon some other court.

This particular local act was before the Court of Appeals for construction in the case of Lee v. Elba Drug Co., 3 Ala.App. 570, 58 So. 58. The act was in that case upheld as a valid enactment. It is true that all the attacks now made upon the act were not then made. The opinion in that case discusses chiefly the question whether or not the act is violative of section 171 of the Constitution as to abolishing a court without conferring its jurisdiction and functions upon another court. What was said by Walker, P.J., in the opinion in that case, is, we think, both apt and conclusive of the questions discussed and decided; and we adopt it as a part of the opinion in this case.

We do not think this act is void because of its title. While the title may be unnecessarily lengthy, it is perfectly apparent that the body contains but one subject and that that subject is clearly expressed in the title, and that the act is not therefore, violative of section 45 of the Constitution. It has been repeatedly held by this court that this section of the Constitution is complied with when the title and the bill are such as we find in this case.

The title of a bill may be as broad as the Legislature may choose to make it, if it comprehends everything in the bill, and contains but one subject. Bell v. State, 115 Ala. 87, 22 So. 453; Ballentyne v. Wickersham, 75 Ala. 533.

Whatever is referable and cognate to the general subject, or whatever is necessary to a complete enactment in regard to it, or results as a complement to the general expression or is necessary to the end in view, is authorized. Ex parte Birmingham, 116 Ala. 186, 22 So. 454.

The exigencies of legislation require that this provision should not be so strictly construed as to cripple the Legislature by prohibiting the insertion of matters not included in the title, but which are proper for accomplishment of object expressed. Ex parte Birmingham, 116 Ala. 186, 22 So. 454.

We do not agree with counsel that there is anything misleading in the title as to the transfer of pending causes to other courts. If the...