State ex rel. Miller v. State Board of Education, 6318

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho
Writing for the CourtAILSHIE, J.
Citation52 P.2d 141,56 Idaho 210
PartiesSTATE on the Relation of BERT H. MILLER, Attorney General, Appellant, v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION and BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO et al., Respondents
Docket Number6318
Decision Date07 December 1935

52 P.2d 141

56 Idaho 210

STATE on the Relation of BERT H. MILLER, Attorney General, Appellant,
v.

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION and BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO et al., Respondents

No. 6318

Supreme Court of Idaho

December 7, 1935


STATUTES, ENACTMENT OF-EXTRAORDINARY SESSION OF LEGISLATURE-GOVERNOR'S CALL-EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION ACT OF 1935-PUBLIC INDEBTEDNESS-CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS-BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO-UNIFORM DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT.

1. Statute authorizing certain state educational institutions to borrow money from federal agencies to improve their plants held within Governor's call for extraordinary session to enact laws enabling state or its subdivisions to fully co-operate with federal agencies in matters relating to emergency relief or employment (Laws 1935, 1st Ex. Sess., p. 3, chap. 55).

2. Statute authorizing Board of Regents of University of Idaho as a corporation to issue bonds to be amortized over 30-year period from revenues accruing from project financed by bond proceeds held not violative of constitutional limitations on indebtedness of subdivisions of state, since Board of Regents is not within scope of constitutional limitation (Laws 1935, 1st Ex. Sess., chap. 55; I. C. A., sec. 32-103; Const., art. 8, sec. 3, art. 9, sec. 10).

3. Statute authorizing Board of Regents of University of Idaho to borrow money from federal agencies to improve plant and to issue bonds enforceable only out of "income" and revenues pledged to bondholders authorized pledging net income of dormitories donated to Regents and otherwise unencumbered for payment of bonds for proposed university infirmary, and authorized pledging of net, but not gross, income from operation of infirmary to bondholders, since "income" means gain or profit in common parlance (Laws 1935, 1st Ex. Sess., chap. 55, sec. 10).

4. Supreme court assumed jurisdiction of appeal in action for declaratory judgment as to validity of statute authorizing certain state educational institutions to borrow from federal agencies to improve their plants, notwithstanding both appellant and respondents urged validity of statute, in view of public importance of matter involved (Laws 1933, chap. 70; Laws 1935, 1st Ex. Sess., chap. 55).

5. Action for declaratory judgment may invoke either remedial or preventive relief, and may relate to right that has been [56 Idaho 211] breached or is yet in dispute, or status that is undisturbed but endangered; but generally cannot be maintained unless involving some specific adversary question or contention based on existing state of facts (Laws 1933, chap. 70, sec. 1).

APPEAL from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, for Latah County. Hon. Gillies D. Hodge, Judge.

Action by the state, on relation of the Attorney General, for declaratory judgment on validity of chapter 55, First Extraordinary Session, 1935. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed in part.

Judgment affirmed in part. No costs awarded.

Bert H. Miller, Attorney General, and Ariel L. Crowley, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellant.

The subject matter of chapter 55, First Extraordinary Session Laws of 1935, falls within the scope of the Governor's call. (Const., art. 4, sec. 11; 1 Cooley, Const. Lim., 326, 8th ed., and cases there cited; Carver v. Charleston, 113 W.Va. 518, 169 S.E. 521; In re Senate Resolution, 94 Colo. 101, 31 P.2d 325.)

Subject of legislation need only be germane to subject of call for legislative session. (59 C. J. 528, sec. 22, and cases in notes 51-60; In re Governor's Proclamation, 19 Colo. 333, 35 P. 530; Parsons v. People, 32 Colo. 221, 76 P. 666; Dec. Dig., Statutes, sec. 5.)

Article 8, section 3, of the Constitution of Idaho is not applicable to the State Board of Education and Board of Regents of the University of Idaho. The term "board of education" used therein has reference to local boards. (1 Idaho Constitution Conv. 589; Moscow Hdwe. Co. v. Regents, 19 Idaho 420 (431), 113 P. 731; State v. State Board of Education, 33 Idaho 415, 196 P. 201.)

Verner R. Clements and Murray Estes, for Respondents.

The former rule requiring a positive conflict between plaintiff and defendant in proceedings for declaratory judgment has been modified under the uniform act to this extent. It is only necessary that there exist a real, not a merely theoretical, question; that the person raising it have a real interest in its determination; and that there be joined as party defendant the person in such position that he may oppose the declaration sought, if he choose. (Miller v. Miller, 149 Tenn. 463 (containing an elaborate examination of authorities), 261 S.W. 965 (971); Holly Sugar Corp. v. Fritzler, 42 Wyo. 446, 296 P. 206. See extensive compilations and annotations at the following places: 50 A. L. R. 42 et seq.; 12 A. L. R. 52; 19 A. L. R. 1124; 68 A. L. R. 110; 87 A. L. R. 1205.)

AILSHIE, J. Givens, C. J., and Budge and Morgan, JJ., concur, HOLDEN, J., Concurring Specially.

OPINION

[56 Idaho 212] AILSHIE, J.

This proceeding was instituted in the district court by the state of Idaho on relation of the Attorney General, under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (chap. 70, 1933 Sess. Laws), for the purpose of procuring a judgment declaring the validity or invalidity of chapter 55, First Extraordinary Session, Laws 1935.

The district court sustained the act and the state has appealed.

It appears that there are some 2,300 students enrolled at the University of Idaho; that the only hospital facilities they have are in an old residence building, in which about fifteen beds are available for use of students; and that there exists an emergency for an infirmary and hospital facilities. The State Board of Education and Board of Regents of the University proposed to enter into a contract with the United States, whereby the government will grant to the University for construction of an infirmary, as a relief project, $ 49,682 as a gift and $ 68,500 on a 30-year amortized loan; and that the loan shall be repaid to the government from gross revenues accruing from the operation of the infirmary to be constructed by the use of such funds, and the income from the dormitory known as Lindley Hall.

It is also alleged by the Attorney General as relator, "that the pledging of the gross revenues from the infirmary contemplated by said defendants, as hereinafter set forth, will necessitate the expenditure of large [52 P.2d 142] sums of money by way [56 Idaho 213] of administrative and maintenance expense from general legislative appropriations to be made from the treasury of the State of Idaho, during the term of such assignment" (of revenues pledged).

It is also alleged that Lindley Hall is one of the established and existing dormitories of the University of Idaho, and is owned by the defendant corporation (State Board of Education and Board of Regents of the University of Idaho); and that no liens or encumbrances exist against the same; that this hall or dormitory was not purchased or procured by state or federal funds but was a gift to the Regents from popular subscription and donated to the Regents for the use of students; and that the title thereto is in defendant corporation (Board of Regents).

Although a considerable number of questions were submitted to and passed upon by the trial court, it is suggested by the briefs of both parties that there are really only three questions properly or necessarily involved and here presented for decision, namely:

1. Is chapter 55,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Wright v. Oklahoma Corp., No. 101,605.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 2 Octubre 2007
    ...a copy of the [attorney general's] opinion, to said complaint ...." Similarly, in State ex rel. Miller v. State Board of Education, 56 Idaho 210, 52 P.2d 141 (1935), the controversy did not turn on an issue of fact, but on three questions of law. Id. 52 P.2d at 142. In Whelan v. New Je......
  • Witzenburger v. State ex rel. Wyoming Community Development Authority, No. 4788
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 13 Febrero 1978
    ...town, township, board of education or school district. See also in a similar vein, State ex rel. Miller v. State Board of Education, 1935, 56 Idaho 210, 52 P.2d The constitutional examples of counties, towns and school districts are ones that have the distinctive badges of a political subdi......
  • Boundary Backpackers v. Boundary County, No. 21287
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 18 Marzo 1996
    ...it must involve actual and existing facts." Id. at 516-17, 681 P.2d at 991-92 (quoting State ex rel. Miller v. State Bd. of Educ., 56 Idaho 210, 217, 52 P.2d 141, 144 (1935)). In the present case, the ordinance threatens to disturb the status and management of federal and state public ......
  • Moore v. Moore
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 29 Enero 1942
    ...invoked only when the question "involve[s] actual and existing facts." State ex rel. Miller v. State Board of Education, 1935, 56 Idaho 210, 52 P.2d 141, 144. The Supreme Court of Colorado said: "This act was not intended to repeal the statute prohibiting judges from giving l......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
52 cases
  • State ex rel. Wright v. Oklahoma Corp., No. 101,605.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 2 Octubre 2007
    ...a copy of the [attorney general's] opinion, to said complaint ...." Similarly, in State ex rel. Miller v. State Board of Education, 56 Idaho 210, 52 P.2d 141 (1935), the controversy did not turn on an issue of fact, but on three questions of law. Id. 52 P.2d at 142. In Whelan v. New Je......
  • Witzenburger v. State ex rel. Wyoming Community Development Authority, No. 4788
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 13 Febrero 1978
    ...town, township, board of education or school district. See also in a similar vein, State ex rel. Miller v. State Board of Education, 1935, 56 Idaho 210, 52 P.2d The constitutional examples of counties, towns and school districts are ones that have the distinctive badges of a political subdi......
  • Boundary Backpackers v. Boundary County, No. 21287
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 18 Marzo 1996
    ...it must involve actual and existing facts." Id. at 516-17, 681 P.2d at 991-92 (quoting State ex rel. Miller v. State Bd. of Educ., 56 Idaho 210, 217, 52 P.2d 141, 144 (1935)). In the present case, the ordinance threatens to disturb the status and management of federal and state public ......
  • Moore v. Moore
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 29 Enero 1942
    ...invoked only when the question "involve[s] actual and existing facts." State ex rel. Miller v. State Board of Education, 1935, 56 Idaho 210, 52 P.2d 141, 144. The Supreme Court of Colorado said: "This act was not intended to repeal the statute prohibiting judges from giving l......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT