State, Ex Rel., v. Moore

• Citation: 177 N.E. 910,124 Ohio St. 256
• Decision Date: 27 August 1931
• Docket Number: 23145
• Parties: The State, Ex Rel. City Loan & Savings Co. Of Wapakoneta, v. Moore, Clerk Of Courts.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

177 N.E. 910

124 Ohio St. 256

The State, Ex Rel. City Loan & Savings Co. Of Wapakoneta, v. Moore, Clerk Of Courts.

No. 23145

Supreme Court of Ohio

August 27, 1931

Statutory construction - Old statute re-enacted before effective date of new legislation - Section 6290 et seq., General Code (114 O.L., 173 and 815) - Transfer of title to motor vehicles - Later act constituted reconsideration and nullification of former enactment - Disregard of legislative reconsideration rule not subject to judicial inquiry, when - Legislative, act not invalidated for noncompliance with rules, when.

IN MANDAMUS.

Messrs Hughes & Rodgers, for relator.

Mr. E L. Foote, prosecuting attorney, for defendant.

BY THE COURT (MARSHALL, C. J.)

The relator invokes the original jurisdiction of this court in mandamus to compel the clerk of the courts of Portage county to issue a certificate of title for certain automobiles, and to note thereon liens given to said relator for loans made to sundry citizens of Portage county, in accordance with Sections 6290 to 6290-16, inclusive, General Code, effective July 31, 1931 (114 Ohio Laws, 173), known as the Pringle Bill. The prosecuting attorney of Portage county demurs to the petition on the general ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The legal question presented is whether or not those sections are or ever became valid enactments. The Pringle Act was passed by the General Assembly during its recent session, in the month of April, 1931, and was signed by the Governor, and in the ordinary course of events would have become effective July 31, 1931. The act was designed to amend certain sections of the General Code, and supplement certain other sections.

Prior to the effective date of the legislation, another bill was introduced, known as the Marshall Bill, and passed both houses, received the signature of the Governor, and in the ordinary course of events would have become effective on October 14, 1931. By the Pringle Bill those sections of the General Code which were amended and supplemented were expressly repealed. The purpose of the enactment of the Marshall Bill was to entirely repeal the provisions of the Pringle Bill and to re-enact the former sections of the General Code which were sought to be repealed by the Pringle Bill. Neither of the bills contained an emergency clause. It then became a question with the clerks of the courts of the various counties of the state whether the Pringle Bill was an effective law from July 31, 1931, to October 14, 1931. Upon request, the Attorney General gave an opinion (July 9, 1931 No. 3416), the pertinent portion of which is as follows "It is well settled that where there is an express repeal of an existing statute, and a reenactment of it at the same time, or a repeal and a reenactment of a portion of it the re-enactment neutralizes the repeal so far as the old law is continued in force, however, a repeal is not rendered inoperative by a re-enactment where they are not simultaneous, where there is an interval of time after the repeal takes effect before the re-enactment goes into operation. Lewis' Sutherland on Statutory Construction (2d Ed.), Section 238."

From this declaration the Attorney General reasoned that the re-enactment of the old law existing before the passage of the Pringle Bill did not go into operation until October 14, and that the Pringle Bill became an effective act on July 31, and continued in effect until the effective date of the Marshall Bill on October 14. We are of the opinion that the Attorney General has not reached the correct conclusion in this matter and that he has treated the Pringle Bill as "an existing statute." We could concur in the opinion of the Attorney General if the Pringle Bill had become effective before passage of the Marshall Bill. The Marshall Bill was enacted in all respects in...