State ex rel. Packard v. Jorgenson
| Citation | 154 N.W. 525,31 N.D. 563 |
| Decision Date | 07 October 1915 |
| Docket Number | 1915 |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Writ issued.
Warrants issued.
George E. Wallace and H. H. Steele, for petitioner.
The supreme court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus or other writs, especially where the prerogatives rights and franchises of state government are involved. Const. §§ 86, 87; Rev. Codes 1905, §§ 6751, 7822, Comp. Laws 1913, §§ 6727, 8457; State ex rel. Goodwin v. Nelson County, 1 N.D. 101 8 L.R.A. 283, 26 Am. St. Rep. 609, 45 N.W. 33; State ex rel. Moore v. Archibald, 5 N.D. 359, 66 N.W. 234; State ex rel. Wineman v. Dahl, 6 N.D. 81, 34 L.R.A 97, 68 N.W. 418; State ex rel. Plain v. Falley, 8 N.D. 90, 76 N.W. 996; State ex rel. Wolfe v. Falley, 9 N.D. 450, 83 N.W. 860; State ex rel. Fosser v. Lavik, 9 N.D. 461, 83 N.W. 914; Anderson v. Gordon, 9 N.D. 480, 52 L.R.A. 134, 83 N.W. 993; State ex rel. Granvold v. Porter, 11 N.D. 309, 91 N.W. 944; State ex rel. Buttz v. Liudahl, 11 N.D. 320, 91 N.W. 950; State ex rel. Byrne v. Wilcox, 11 N.D. 329, 91 N.W. 955; State ex rel. Walker v. McLean County, 11 N.D. 356, 92 N.W. 388; Duluth Elevator Co. v. White, 11 N.D. 534, 90 N.W. 14; State ex rel. Mitchell v. Larson, 13 N.D. 420, 101 N.W. 315; State ex rel. Frich v. Stark County, 14 N.D. 368, 103 N.W. 913; State ex rel. Madderson v. Nohle, 16 N.D. 168, 125 Am. St. Rep. 628, 112 N.W. 141; State ex rel. Erickson v. Burr, 16 N.D. 581, 113 N.W. 705; State ex rel. Steel v. Fabrick, 17 N.D. 532, 117 N.W. 860; State ex rel. Cooper v. Blaisdell, 17 N.D. 575, 118 N.W. 225; State ex rel. McCue v. Blaisdell, 18 N.D. 55, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 465, 138 Am. St. Rep. 741, 118 N.W. 141, 18 N.D. 31, 118 N.W. 360; State ex rel. Miller v. Norton, 20 N.D. 180, 127 N.W. 717; State ex rel. Williams v. Meyer, 20 N.D. 628, 127 N.W. 834; State ex rel. Miller v. Miller, 21 N.D. 324, 131 N.W. 282; State ex rel. Watkins v. Norton, 21 N.D. 473, 131 N.W. 257; State ex rel. Birdzell v. Jorgenson, 25 N.D. 539, 49 L.R.A.(N.S.) 67, 142 N.W. 450.
"A majority of said Tax Commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business and the performance of the duties of the commission." Comp. Laws 1913, § 2085.
"It is elementary that when two laws relating to the same subject-matter are passed at the same legislative session they are to be construed together if possible, so as to give effect to each." Hoyne v. Danisch, 264 Ill. 467, 106 N.E. 341.
"It is sufficient if the intention to make the appropriation is clearly evidenced by the language employed in the statute upon the subject, or if it is evident that no effect can possibly be given to a statute unless it be construed as making the necessary appropriation." Carr v. State, 127 Ind. 204, 11 L.R.A. 370, 22 Am. St. Rep. 624, 26 N.E. 778; Power v. Hamilton, 22 N.D. 177, 132 N.W. 664; Vermont Loan & T. Co. v. Whithed, 2 N.D. 82, 49 N.W. 318; State ex rel. Flaherty v. Hanson, 16 N.D. 347, 113 N.W. 371; Whitney v. Whitney, 14 Mass. 92; Ryegate v. Wardsboro, 30 Vt. 746; People ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Utica Ins. Co. 15 Johns. 358, 8 Am. Dec. 243; Durousseau v. United States, 6 Cranch, 307, 3 L. ed. 232; Brewer v. Blougher, 14 Pet. 178, 10 L. ed. 408; Reiche v. Smythe, 13 Wall. 162, 20 L. ed. 566; Atkins v. Fibre Disintegrating Co. 18 Wall. 302, 21 L. ed. 841; 36 Cyc. 1109, and cases cited; Howlett v. Cheetham, 17 Wash. 626, 50 P. 523.
"Repeals by implication are not favored, and will not be indulged in unless it is manifest that the legislature so intended." Reeves & Co. v. Bruening, 16 N.D. 402, 114 N.W. 313; 26 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 721, and cases cited; 2 Current Law, 1734--1736 and recent authorities cited; 36 Cyc. 1087; Birmingham v. Southern Exp. Co. 164 Ala. 529, 51 So. 159; State ex rel. Metcalf v. Baker, 114 Minn. 209, 130 N.W. 999; Wilson v. Edwards County, 85 Kan. 422, 116 P. 614; Greenbush Cemetery Asso. v. Van Natta, 49 Ind.App. 194, 94 N.E. 899; Lewis's Sutherland Stat. Constr. 2d ed. § 247, and note, § 267, and cases cited; State v. Young, 17 Kan. 414; Minot v. Amundson, 22 N.D. 239, 133 N.W. 551; Hoyne v. Danisch, 264 Ill. 483, 106 N.E. 341; People ex rel. Hinch v. Harrison, 185 Ill. 307, 56 N.E. 1120; People ex rel. Kelly v. Raymond, 186 Ill. 407, 57 N.E. 1066; Galpin v. Chicago, 249 Ill. 554, 94 N.E. 961; Cruse v. Aden, 127 Ill. 231, 3 L.R.A. 327, 20 N.E. 73; People ex rel. Akin v. Kipley, 171 Ill. 44, 41 L.R.A. 775, 49 N.E. 229; Hogan v. Akin, 181 Ill. 448, 55 N.E. 137; Krome v. Halbert, 263 Ill. 172, 104 N.E. 1066; People ex rel. Redman v. Wren, 5 Ill. 269; Bryan v. Buckmaster, Breese (Ill.) 408; People ex rel. Krouse v. Harrison, 191 Ill. 257, 61 N.E. 99; Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Blind, Ind. , 105 N.E. 483; 9 Ind. Dig. Stat. V. b; Carver v. Smith, 90 Ind. 222, 46 Am. Rep. 210; Jeffersonville, M. & I. R. Co. v. Dunlap, 112 Ind. 93, 13 N.E. 403.
There must be an irreconcilable conflict before it can be said that one law passed by the same legislature repeals another upon the same subject, and there is no such conflict unless, after the application of every recognized rule of construction, substantial harmony is found impossible. Hay v. Baraboo, 127 Wis. 1, 3 L.R.A.(N.S.) 84, 115 Am. St. Rep. 977, 105 N.W. 654; Black, Interpretation of Laws, pp. 117, 118; Sedgw. Stat. Constr. 98; Lewis's Sutherland, Stat. Constr. § 275; Dwarris, Stat. 765; Deneen v. Unverzagt, 225 Ill. 378, 80 N.E. 321, 8 Ann. Cas. 396, and cases cited; Jersey City v. Hall, 79 N.J.L. 559, 76 A. 1058, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 696; 36 Cyc. 1088, and authorities; Lewis v. Cook County, 72 Ill.App. 151; State ex rel. St. Paul Gaslight Co. v. McCardy, 62 Minn. 509, 64 N.W. 1133; Crane v. Reeder, 22 Mich. 322; Woodworth v. Kalamazoo, 135 Mich. 233, 97 N.W. 714; Nelden v. Clark, 20 Utah 382, 77 Am. St. Rep. 917, 59 P. 524; Fargo v. Ross, 11 N.D. 369, 92 N.W. 449; Schafer v. Schafer, 71 Neb. 708, 99 N.W. 482; Augusta Nat. Bank v. Beard, 100 Va. 687, 42 S.E. 694; State ex rel. Henderson v. Burdick, 4 Wyo. 272, 24 L.R.A. 266, 33 P. 125.
The repeal clause to an act adds no strength to the act itself. The fact of repeal must clearly appear from the subject-matter and from the language used. Hoyne v. Danisch, 264 Ill. 483, 106 N.E. 341.
A general appropriation bill merely suspends a continuing appropriation in case of conflict. Reed v. Houston, 12 Iowa 35; Jeffreys v. Huston, 23 Idaho 372, 129 P. 1065; United States v. Langston, 118 U.S. 389, 30 L. ed. 164, 6 S.Ct. 1185; Mernaugh v. Orlando, 41 Fla. 433, 27 So. 34; Brown v. Barry, 3 Dall. 365, 1 L. ed. 638; 36 Cyc. 1101.
Henry J. Linde, Attorney General, Francis J. Murphy, and H. R. Bitzing, Assistant Attorneys General for defendant.
Assuming that chapter 303 of the Session Laws of 1911, being the law creating a nonpartisan tax commission, contains in itself a sufficient appropriation, the contention of the defendant is that any appropriation which might be so contained has been suspended by the general appropriation bill or the so-called budget bill of the 1915 general legislative assembly. Jeffreys v. Huston, 23 Idaho 379, 129 P. 1065; State ex rel. Holcombe v. Burdick, 4 Wyo. 290, 33 P. 131; United States v. Fisher, 109 U.S. 146, 27 L. ed. 887, 3 S.Ct. 154; United States v. Mitchell, 149 U.S. 146, 27 L. ed. 887, 1 S.Ct. 157; Falk v. Huston, 25 Idaho 26, 135 P. 746; United States v. Langston, 118 U.S. 389, 30 L. ed. 164, 6 S.Ct. 1185; Dunwoody v. United States, 143 U.S. 578, 36 L. ed. 269, 12 S.Ct. 465; Belknap v. United States, 150 U.S. 588, 37 L. ed. 1191, 14 S.Ct. 183.
The intention of the legislature as indicated and expressed by the budget bill of 1915 was to reduce the salaries of the tax commissioners. It is not to be presumed that the legislature only intended to appropriate part of that which they knew had been already appropriated. Mansfield v. Chambers, 26 Cal.App. 499, 147 P. 595; Belknap v. United States, 150 U.S. 588, 37 L. ed. 1191, 14 S.Ct. 183; Owen v. Beale, 145 Ala. 108, 39 So. 907; State ex rel. Jones v. Clausen, 78 Wash. 103, 138 P. 653.
BURKE, J. BRUCE, J., did not participate, HONORABLE W. L. NUESSLE, Judge of Sixth Judicial District, sitting in his stead.
Petitioner asks mandamus to compel the state auditor to issue salary warrants to the members of the state Tax Commission. The facts leading up to the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows: Chapter 303, Sess. Laws 1911, creates a permanent nonpartisan Tax Commission, defines its powers, and appropriates money for the maintenance thereof. Section 2 of said chapter provides for the appointment by the governor, with the advice and consent of the senate, of three persons, the term of one of whom should expire on the first Monday in May, 1915; another whose term should expire May, 1917, and one whose term should expire May, 1919, and upon the expiration of the term of each of said persons a successor be named for a period of six years. Section 5 provides that each of said commissioners shall receive an annual salary of $ 3,000 payable in the same manner as the salaries of other state officers are paid. By chapter 318, Sess. Laws 1913, amendments were made to §§ 6, 7, and 8 of said chapter 303, Sess. Laws 1911, the object of the amendment being to specifically appropriate money for the payment of salaries and other expenses of said Tax Commission. The 1913 law, however, was vetoed. See State ex rel. Birdzell v. Jorgenson, 25 N.D. 539, 49 L.R.A.(N.S.) 67, 142 N.W. 450.
With the legislation and litigation in this condition, the legislature of 1915 met. February 8, 1915, senate bill No 261 was introduced under a title stating that its object was to amend and re-enact chapter 303, Sess....
To continue reading
Request your trial