State v. Brackin

• Decision Date: 05 February 1908
• Citation: 45 So. 841,154 Ala. 151
• Parties: STATE EX REL. LESLIE ET AL. v. BRACKIN ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

45 So. 841

154 Ala. 151

STATE EX REL. LESLIE ET AL. v. BRACKIN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 5, 1908

Appeal from Circuit Court, Houston County; H. A. Pearce, Judge.

Information by the state, on the relation of George Leslie and others against Y. L. Brack in and others, to test title to a public office. Judgment for respondents, and relators appeal. Reversed and rendered.

The act approved August 9, 1907 (Loc. Acts 1907, p. 860), referred to in the opinion, is entitled "An act to establish a board of revenue for Houston county."

John V Smith and R. D. Crawford, for appellants.

Espy &amp Farmer, for appellees.

SIMPSON J.

The information in this case was filed by the appellants alleging that appellees are wrongfully holding and exercising the office of members of the board of revenue of Houston county, and praying that they be excluded from the office which they are severally usurping as members of the said board of revenue of Houston county. The respondents answered, setting up the act of the Legislature approved August 9, 1907 (Loc. Acts 1907, p. 860). The relators demurred to the answer, claiming that the act is unconstitutional and inoperative, on various grounds, which demurrer was overruled. The court then proceeded to render judgment dismissing the information.

It is claimed, first, that said act is violative of section 45 of the Constitution, providing that "each law shall contain but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in the title." The term "board of revenue" has a distinct meaning in our legislative history, from the fact that for many years there have existed in various counties of the state such boards as a substitute for courts of county commissioners, with like powers and duties. This is further shown from the fact that our general statutes provide for the election of the members of "boards of revenue and county commissioners," and such boards are mentioned in various other statutes. Our decisions have settled the point that "the title of the bill may be very general; * * * that it is sufficient if the matters therein are all referable and cognate to the subject expressed; and, when the subject is expressed in general terms, everything which is necessary to make a complete enactment in regard to it, or which results as a complement of the thought contained in the general expression, is included in and authorized by it." Ballentyne v. Wickersham, 75 Ala. 533; Ex parte Pollard, 40 Ala. 98, 99; State v. Harrub, 95 Ala. 177, 10 So. 752, 15 L. R. A. 761, 36 Am. St. Rep. 195; State ex rel., etc., v. Rogers, 107 Ala. 444, 19 So. 909, 32 L. R. A. 520; Ex parte Mayor of Birmingham, 116 Ala. 186, 22 So. 454; State ex rel. Winter v. Sayre, 118 Ala. 35, 24 So. 89; City Council of Montgomery v. Birdsong, 126 Ala. 647, 28 So. 522; Sheppard v. Dowling, 127 Ala. 1, 28 So. 791, 85 Am. St. Rep. 68. The establishment of the board of revenue would carry with it the qualification of its members, their term of office, the mode and time of their election, the jurisdiction and powers of the board, and the conferring upon it of the powers of the court of county commissioners, from which would also follow the abolition of that court, which our legislative history has shown to be the object and purpose of establishing boards of revenue. Without reiterating the various expressions of our many decisions on the subject, we hold that this act is not violative of said section 45, except that the subject of changing the term of office of road overseers is not included in the title, and their term would remain four years, as provided by section 2454 of the Code of 1896.

The act in question divides the county of Houston into five revenue districts, appoints certain persons, therein named, as members of said revenue board, naming one for each district and provides for elections in the future, and that "each member of said board of revenue must be a bona fide resident of the district from which he is elected." The act provides that district No. 1 shall embrace beats 1, 2, 3, and 4; district No. 2, beat 3; district No. 3, beats 7, 8, 10, and 14; district No. 4, beats 6, 11, and 12; and district No. 5, beats 9 and 13. It will be observed that beat 3 is repeated, being in both districts No. 1 and No. 2, and that beat 5 in not included in either district. The appellees contend that this is a clerical mistake, which is self-correcting. It is true that apparent mistakes will be considered as corrected, where the other provisions of the act or...