State ex rel. Wallace v. Jorgenson

• Decision Date: 26 July 1916
• Citation: 159 N.W. 35,34 N.D. 527
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

159 N.W. 35

34 N.D. 527

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA EX REL. GEO. E. WALLACE, F. E. Packard, H. H. Steele, Members of the North Dakota Tax Commission, v. CARL O. JORGENSON, as State Auditor

Supreme Court of North Dakota

July 26, 1916

An original proceeding.

Writ denied. No costs taxed. Proceeding dismissed.

Geo. E Wallace and F. E. Packard, for petitioners.

Where the prerogatives, rights, and franchises of the state government are here directly involved, the supreme court has original jurisdiction. State ex rel. Birdzell v Jorgenson, 25 N.D. 539, 49 L.R.A. (N.S.) 67, 142 N.W 450.

"If a statute is valid, it is to have effect according to the purpose and intent of the lawmaker. The intent is the vital part, the essence of the law, and the primary rule of construction is to ascertain and give effect to that intent." 2 Lewis's Sutherland, Stat. Constr. 2d ed § 63.

"By the construction of a statute is meant the process of ascertaining its true meaning and application. For this purpose resort may be had not only to the language and arrangement of the statute, but also to the intention of the legislature, the object to be secured, and to such extrinsic matters as the circumstances attending its passage, the sense in which it was understood by contemporaries, and its relation to other laws." 36 Cyc. 1102; Power v Hamilton, 22 N.D. 177, 132 N.W. 664; Howlett v. Cheetham, 17 Wash. 626, 50 P. 523.

Section 303 of the 1911 Laws has not been repealed. Repeals by implication are not favored, and will not be indulged in unless it is manifest that the legislature so intended. Reeves v. Bruening, 16 N.D. 398, 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. 192, 94 N.E. 899; Lewis's Sutherland, Stat. Constr. 2d ed. 247, and note.

Such repeals are avoided if possible. 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.) 22, Appx.; People ex rel. Krause v. Harrison, 191 Ill. 257, 61 N.E. 99; Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Blind, 182 Ind. 398, 105 N.E. 483; Indiana State Dig. 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; Hay v. Baraboo, 127 Wis. 1, 3 L.R.A. (N.S.) 84, 115 Am. St. Rep. 977, 105 N.W. 654; Black, Constr. & Interpretation of Laws, pp. 117, 118; Sedgw. Stat. & Const. Law, 98; 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; Lewis's Sutherland, Stat. Constr. 2d ed. §§ 267, 275, citing Dwarris, Stat. 765; 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. 127.

A general appropriation bill merely suspends a continuing appropriation, in case of conflict. 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.

In the absence of constitutional prohibition, the legislature may make continuing appropriations, that is, the payment of which is to be continued beyond the term or session of the legislature by which they were made. 37 Cyc. 894; Re Continuing Appropriations, 18 Colo. 192, 32 P. 272; Carr v. State, 127 Ind. 204, 11 L.R.A. 370, 22 Am. St. Rep. 624, 26 N.E. 778; People ex rel. McCullough v. Pacheco, 27 Cal. 176; Stratton v. Green, 45 Cal. 149; State ex rel. McDonald v. Holmes, 19 N.D. 286, 123 N.W. 884.

The term "specific" as used by the courts means nothing more nor less than the setting apart of a definite amount for a definite purpose. State ex rel. Packard v. Jorgenson, 31 N.D. 563, 154 N.W. 525.

Henry J. Linde, Attorney General, Francis J. Murphy and H. R. Bitzing, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.

The mere fixing of the amount of compensation to be paid and directing the time and manner of payment is not in itself a valid appropriation. Const. § 186; Redding v. Bell, 4 Cal. 333; Myers v. English, 9 Cal. 341; Stratton v. Green, 45 Cal. 149; Baggett v. Dunn, 69 Cal. 75, 10 P. 125; State ex rel. Blackford v. Kenney, 10 Mont. 496, 26 P. 388; Goodykoontz v. Acker, 19 Colo. 360, 35 P. 911; Shattuck v. Kincaid, 31 Ore. 379, 49 P. 758; State ex rel. Buchanan v. State Treasurer, 68 S.C. 411, 47 S.E. 683; Menefee v. Askew, 25 Okla. 623, 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 537, 107 P. 159; Leddy v. Cornell, 52 Colo. 189, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 918, 120 P. 153, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 1304; McPherson v. Houston, 24 Idaho 21, 132 P. 107; Mansfield v. Chambers, 26 Cal.App. 499, 147 P. 595.

Under this constitutional provision the salary or compensation of the officers named therein only is beyond the power of the legislature to increase or reduce during the term for which they may be elected. Thomas v. Owens, 4 Md. 189; State ex rel. Roberts v. Weston, 4 Neb. 216; State ex rel. Rotwitt v. Hickman, 9 Mont. 370, 8 L.R.A. 403, 23 P. 740; State ex rel. Buck v. Hickman, 10 Mont. 497, 26 P. 386; State ex rel. Henderson v. Burdick, 4 Wyo. 272, 24 L.R.A. 266, 33 P. 125; People ex rel. Hegwer v. Goodykoontz, 22 Colo. 507, 45 P. 414; White v. Huston, 25 Idaho 170, 136 P. 214; State ex rel. Fornoff v. Sargent, 18 N. M. 272, 136 P. 602; State ex rel. Chavez v. Sargent, 18 N. M. 627, 139 P. 144; Dorman v. Sargent, 20 N. M. 413, 150 P. 1021.

Under § 186 of the Constitution no particular appropriation or set form of words is requisite or necessary to accomplish this purpose, but the clear intent to set aside a specified sum of money must appear in the language used in the statute. State ex rel. Wade v. Kenney, 10 Mont. 485, 26 P. 197; Terrell v. Sparks, 104 Tex. 191, 135 S.W. 519; Gilbert v. Moody, 3 Idaho 3, 25 P. 1092; State ex rel. Brainerd v. Grimes, 7 Wash. 191, 34 P. 833; Humbert v. Dunn, 84 Cal. 57, 24 P. 111; Proll v. Dunn, 80 Cal. 220, 22 P. 143; People ex rel. McCauley v. Brooks, 16 Cal. 24; State v. Bordelon, 6 La.Ann. 68.

The original Tax Commission Act does not constitute an appropriation. State ex rel. Birdzell v. Jorgenson, 25 N.D. 539, 49 L.R.A. (N.S.) 67, 142 N.W. 450; McPherson v. Huston, 24 Idaho 21, 132 P. 107.

Section 654 of the Compiled Laws of 1913 was expressly repealed by chapter 43 of the Laws of 1915 and removes all of the reasons or grounds upon which the Birdzell Case stood. Nichols v. The Comptroller, 4 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 154; Reynolds v. Taylor, 43 Ala. 420 (1864); Carr v. State, 127 Ind. 204, 11 L.R.A. 370, 22 Am. St. Rep. 624, 26 N.E. 778; Myers v. English, 9 Cal. 341; Pickle v. Finley, 91 Tex. 484, 44 S.W. 480; Shattuck v. Kincaid, 31 Ore. 379, 49 P. 758; Kingsbury v. Anderson, 5 Idaho, 771, 51 P. 744; State ex rel. Keith v. Westerfield, 23 Nev. 468, 49 P. 119; State ex rel. Davis v. Eggers, 29 Nev. 469, 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 630, 91 P. 819; State ex rel. Norcross v. Eggers, 35 Nev. 250, 128 P. 987.

Where the salary or compensation is fixed by statute, and the language fixing such salary or compensation is coupled with the words "he shall receive," or other similar language, or is coupled with the expression that the "salary shall be payable in the same manner that the salary of other state officers is paid," and other state officers being paid monthly upon warrant of the state auditor, then such statutory provision might be construed as an appropriation. State ex rel. Brown v. Weston, 6 Neb. 16; Martin v. Francis, 13 Kan. 220; People ex rel. Richardson v. Spruance, 8 Colo. 530, 9 P. 628; State ex rel. Journal Pub. Co. v. Kenney, 9 Mont. 389, 24 P. 96; Kingsbury v. Anderson, 5 Idaho, 771, 51 P. 744; Pickle v. Finley, 91 Tex. 484, 44 S.W. 480; Prime v. McCarthy, 92 Iowa 569, 61 N.W. 220.

"No bill shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title, but a bill which violates this provision shall be invalidated thereby only as to so much thereto as shall not be so expressed." Const. § 61; State ex rel. McDonald v. Holmes, 19 N.D. 286, 123 N.W. 884; Mathews v. People, 202 Ill. 389, 63 L.R.A. 73, 95 Am. St. Rep. 241, 67 N.E. 28; People v. Joyce, 246 Ill. 124, 92 N.E. 607, 20 Ann. Cas. 472; Re Appropriation Bill, 14 Fla. 283; State ex rel. Hibbard v. Cornell, 60 Neb. 276, 83 N.W. 72; Merrill v. State, 65 Neb. 509, 91 N.W. 418; Prewitt v. Prewitt, 56 Colo. 174, 139 P. 1; People ex rel. Richardson v. Spruance, 8 Colo. 530, 9 P. 628; State ex rel. Delgado v. Sargent, 18 N. M. 131, 134 P. 218; Fergus v. Russel, 270 Ill. 304, 110 N.E. 130, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 1120.

The unity of the subject of an appropriation bill is not broken by appropriating several sums for several specific objects which were necessary or convenient to...