State ex rel. Sathre v. Board of University and School Lands of State
| Citation | 262 N.W. 60,65 N.D. 687 |
| Decision Date | 29 June 1935 |
| Docket Number | 6360 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Every legislative enactment is presumed to be constitutional and this presumption is conclusive, unless it is clearly shown that the enactment is prohibited by the Constitution of the state or of the United States.
2. When the constitutionality of a statute is drawn in question, he who alleges it to be unconstitutional must be able to point to the particular constitutional provision that has been violated.
3. The wisdom, necessity, or expediency of legislation are matters for legislative, and not for judicial, determination; and a statute which violates, neither expressly nor by necessary implication, any constitutional provision is in itself evidence of its propriety and justice.
4. Senate Bill No. 26, Laws 1935 (chapter 255, Laws 1935) which authorizes " the scaling down and discounting of past due interest" on real estate mortgage loans made by the Board of University and School Lands does not violate subsection 27, § 69, of the State Constitution, which inhibits the legislative assembly from passing any local or special laws relinquishing or extinguishing in whole or in part the indebtedness, liability, or obligation of any corporation or person to the state, or to any municipal corporation therein.
5. Under section 89 of the State Constitution, as amended, which provides " that in no case shall any legislative enactment or law of the state of North Dakota be declared unconstitutional unless at least four of the judges of the supreme court shall so decide," it becomes the duty of the Supreme Court to sustain the constitutionality of any legislative enactment of the state of North Dakota when two or more of the judges, who participate in the determination hold the act to be constitutional.
6. It is beyond legislative power to divert, or to authorize the diversion of, any part of the principal, or of the interest or income from the investment of any of the funds under the control of the Board of University and School Lands arising from the rental or sale of lands granted by the United States in the Enabling Act, to any objects or purposes other than those for which the grants were made; and any diversion thereof to any purposes or objects other than those for which the grants were made, or any donation thereof to or in aid of any individual, either by the legislative assembly directly or by the Board of University and School Lands pursuant to legislative enactment, is inhibited by sections 154 and 159 of the State Constitution.
7. The constitutionality of a statute depends upon whether the rule of action put into operation thereby contravenes any constitutional provision. If the rule of action is one which the legislative assembly has power to adopt, the law cannot be declared unconstitutional on account of matter set forth by way of argument or reasons for the enactment of the law.
8. Inasmuch as two of the judges of the Supreme Court are of the opinion that Senate Bill No. 26, Laws 1935 (chapter 255), does not violate sections 154, 159, and § 185 (as amended) of the State Constitution, it is held by the Supreme Court, pursuant to section 89 of the State Constitution, as amended, that said Senate Bill No. 26 does not contravene said constitutional provisions, but is a valid enactment.
9. Senate Bill No. 26, Laws 1935, does not evidence a legislative intention that the Board of University and School Lands shall reduce, scale down, or throw off past-due interest on real estate mortgages indiscriminately in all cases. It confers power and vests discretion in the board to do so in cases where the board finds this to be for the best interest of the trust fund invested in the mortgage. Per Judges BERRY and CHRISTIANSON.
10. The great and primary duty of the Board of University and School Lands is to safeguard the trust funds under its control and direct the investment thereof to the best advantage. The power conferred upon the board by Senate Bill No. 26 must be exercised in furtherance of such duty, and the board may not divert or donate any part of the interest income from real estate mortgage investments; but the board may reduce, scale down, or throw off past-due interest in any case where in its judgment this is necessary to protect the investment, and where the reduction, scaling down, or throwing off of interest will not in fact take anything away from the fund. Per Judges BERRY and CHRISTIANSON.
11. Whether past-due interest should be reduced, scaled down, or thrown off is a matter for the determination of the Board of University and School Lands in each case. The board's decision is final, and, in absence of fraud, is not subject to judicial review. Per Judges BERRY and CHRISTIANSON.
Appeal from District Court, Burleigh County; Jansonius, Judge.
Action by the State, on the relation of P. O. Sathre, Attorney General, against the Board of University and School Lands of North Dakota, and another, to enjoin defendants from exercising certain authority conferred on the board by Senate Bill No. 26, Laws 1935. From an order sustaining a general demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
Order affirmed.
P. O. Sathre, Attorney General, and Charles A. Verret, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.
J. A. Heder, for respondents.
Christianson, J. Burke, Ch. J., and Burr, J., and Berry and Miller, Dist. JJ., concur. Nuessle and Morris, JJ., deeming themselves disqualified, did not participate, Hon. H. L. Berry and Hon. Harvey J. Miller, Judges of Sixth Judicial District, sitting in their stead.
The sole question involved in this controversy is the constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 26, Laws 1935 (chap 255). The statute in question was enacted by the last legislative assembly and is entitled: "An act to provide for the scaling down and discounting of past due interest on loans made by the Board of University and School Lands."
The act (aside from repeal and emergency provisions) reads as follows:
"That whereas the farming industry in the State of North Dakota has suffered many serious setbacks in the past few years and the value of farm land, on account of the depression and general condition of the times under which we are living, has greatly depreciated; and, whereas, it has been impossible for many of our best farmers to make payment upon the lands purchased from the Board of University and School Lands of this State, or to pay interest upon the loans borrowed from such Board, now, therefore, it is hereby provided that from and after the passage and approval of this Act, the Board of University and School Lands shall be authorized, through its proper officials, to reduce, scale down, or throw off the interest that may be due upon any land contract or real estate mortgage, or rentals, to the end that justice may be done in dealing with our farmers and to enable the farmers indebted to the Board of University and School Lands to pay their debts and retain their property."
This action was instituted to prevent the Board of University and School Lands from exercising the power which said Senate Bill No. 26 purports to confer upon it, and to enjoin it from remitting certain past due interest on a first mortgage on real property held by the Board of University and School Lands.
It is alleged in the complaint that applications have been presented to the Board of University and School Lands asking it to reduce and scale down accrued and delinquent interest on certain real estate mortgages, and that said Board is about to and will "accept from debtors of mortgages securing the payment of investments of permanent school funds in this state less than the interest in full accrued thereon."
It is further alleged that "said defendants have no authority to accept in payment of any mortgage due the State of North Dakota as security for investment of the permanent school funds of this State under the control of said defendants any sum less than the total amount due thereon on the date of the payment thereof for principal and interest according to the terms of said mortgages and to scale down any part thereof, either of principal or interest, and that Senate Bill No. 26 on the authority of which the defendants threaten to act in granting all or any of the applications aforementioned is unconstitutional and null and void for the following reasons:"
(1) That it violates subsection 27, § 69 of the State Constitution, which provides that the legislative assembly shall not pass any local or special laws relinquishing or extinguishing in whole or in part the indebtedness, liability or obligation of any corporation or person to the state or to any municipal corporation therein.
(2) That it violates § 154 of the State Constitution, which requires that all interest accrued from the permanent school funds of the state shall be faithfully used and applied each year for the benefit of the common schools of the state and directs that no part of that fund shall ever be diverted from this purpose or used for any purpose whatever other than for the maintenance of the common schools for the equal benefit of all the people of the state.
(3) That it violates the provisions of § 159 of the State Constitution in that it permits the application of part of the funds entrusted to the Board of University and School Lands "to objects other than the specific object of the original grants which created said funds."
(4) That it violates § 185 of the State Constitution as amended, which provides that...
To continue reading
Request your trial