State ex rel. James v. Aronson
Decision Date | 20 August 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 9805,9805 |
Parties | STATE of Montana ex rel. David F. JAMES, Relator, v. J. Hugo ARONSON, Forrest H. Anderson, and Frank Murray, being and constituting the State Board of Examiners, et al., Respondents. |
Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Ralph J. Anderson, Helena, and Ben E. Berg, Jr., Livingston, for relator.
Ralph J. Anderson, Helena, and Ben E. Berg, Jr., Livingston, argued orally for relator.
Forrest H. Anderson, Atty Gen., William F. Crowley and James A. Robischon, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondents.
William F. Crowley and James A. Robischon, Asst. Attys. Gen., argued orally, for respondents.
This is an original proceeding in this court. The relator is seeking a writ of mandate to compel the State Board of Examiners to allow his claim for actual expenses in attending the organizational meeting of the Legislative Council created pursuant to the provisions of House Bill 46, chapter 34, Laws of 1957.
The application for a writ of mandamus alleges the enactment of the act, the appointment of the relator as a member of the Interim Committee known as the Legislative Council, the attendance at a meeting for organization, the filing of his claim for actual expenses pursuant to the provisions of the act and the rejection of the claim by the State Board of Examiners upon the ground that the act is unconstitutional under the authority of the case of State ex rel. Mitchell v. Holmes, 128 Mont. 275, 274 P.2d 611.
An alternative writ of mandamus was issued directed to the respondent Board. To the alternative writ, the respondents filed three separate pleadings: a general demurrer, a motion to quash, and an answer. The motion to quash challenged the sufficiency of the alternative writ of mandate and the affidavit upon which it was based. The motion to quash also alleged that the act under which the relator seeks relief is unconstitutional and pointed out the specific provisions of the Constitution which are alleged to be violated by the statute. As previously stated, a general demurrer was also filed.
The answer of the respondents places in issue the validity of the appointments to the Legislative council.
House Bill 46, now designated as chapter 34, Laws of 1957, became law when the governor signed it on February 21, 1957. The relator, State Senator David F. James, of Liberty County, was a member of the 1957 legislative body, and it is conceded by the respondents that he did attend the organizational meeting, and should be entitled to payment of his claim for actual expenses, if (1) his appointment was properly made under the terms of the act in question, and (2) if the act itself is constitutional.
Two cases have heretofore been before this court involving similar enactments. In the first case, State ex rel. Mitchell v. Holmes, supra, chapter 143, Laws of 1953 was declared unconstitutional by a three to two decision of this court. The present act omits some of the provisions which were condemned by the court in that case, first, a provision extending the term of membership on the Council beyond the legislative term to which he was elected, and second, the right to accept donation of funds. Other provisions of the present act were condemned in that case.
The second case, that of State ex rel. Schara v. Holmes, Mont.1956, 295 P.2d 1045, turned upon the question of the validity of the appointment of the members of the Council.
The 1957 Act being questioned is, in part, as follows:
'The legislative council shall prepare such bills and resolutions as in its opinion the welfare of the state may require for presentation to the next regular session of the legislative assembly.
* * *'
The respondents' motion to quash challenged this statute as being in contravention of the Montana State Constitution on several grounds that will appear hereinafter.
There are several differences between the statute above set forth, and chapter 143, Session Laws of 1953, which was condemned by this court in Mitchell v. Holmes, supra. In the 1953 Act, membership on the Council continued on throughout the legislative session, which the court held extended the term of office of a member of the House of Representatives beyond the constitutional limitation of two years in violation of section 2, article V of the Constitution. The 1957 Act specifically provides that membership on the Council expires upon termination of the member's legislative term, and in no event may continue beyond December 31 of the year following appointment to the Council.
Also, the 1953 Act permitted the Council to receive grants of money which the court, in Mitchell v. Holmes, held violated section 1, article XIX of the Constitution. No such provision is found here.
The similarities between the 1953 Act and the 1957 Act are as follows: (1) Both acts create a Legislative Council to serve in the interim, with the power to investigate, report and recommend; (2) Membership on the Council is composed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Armstrong v. State
..."the State Constitution is a limitation upon the power of the legislature and not a grant of power to that body." State v. Aronson (1957), 132 Mont. 120, 127, 314 P.2d 849, 852 (citing State ex rel. DuFresne v. Leslie (1935), 100 Mont. 449, 50 P.2d 959). Just as the government has no busine......
-
State v. Dietz
...and in such cases courts are more free to reexamine legal questions. Likewise this case differs from that of State ex rel. James v. Aronson, 132 Mont. 120, 314 P.2d 849, in that there was no acquiescence in the case of State ex rel. Mitchell v. Holmes, 128 Mont. 275, 274 P.2d 611, which was......
-
Jewett v. Williams
...v. Pearson, 165 Or. 40, 103 P.2d 737; State ex rel. Barney v. Hawkins, 79 Mont. 506, 257 P. 411, 53 A.L.R. 583; State ex rel. James v. Aronson, 132 Mont. 120, 314 P.2d 849; Rouse v. Johnson, 234 Ky. 473, 28 S.W.2d 745, 70 A.L.R. 1077; Mulnix v. Elliott, 62 Colo. 46, 156 P. 216; Louisville &......
-
Mont. Cannabis Indus. Ass'n v. State
...258, 263, 175 P. 878, 880 (1918) (“our Constitution is ... a limitation upon the powers of government”); State ex rel. James v. Aronson, 132 Mont. 120, 127, 314 P.2d 849, 852 (1957) (“the State Constitution is a limitation upon the power of the legislature and not a grant of power to that b......