State v. Douglass
| Decision Date | 01 August 1922 |
| Docket Number | 2542. |
| Citation | 208 P. 422,46 Nev. 121 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. ABELMAN v. DOUGLASS ET AL. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Original proceeding in mandamus by the State of Nevada, on the relation of Nick Abelman against W. J. Douglass, and others as members of the County License Board of Nye, State of Nevada. Judgment for relator.
Hugh Henry Brown and Walter Rowson, both of Tonopah, for petitioner.
Frank T. Dunn, Dist. Atty., of Tonopah, L. B. Fowler, Atty. Gen and Robert Richards, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondents.
In 1921 the Legislature passed an act entitled:
"An act to create a county license board, to regulate the issuance and revocation of licenses for billiard halls dancing halls, bowling alleys, theaters, and soft-drink establishments in unincorporated cities and towns of this state." St. 1921, c. 120.
In the body of the act it is provided that--
Any person wishing to engage in any business mentioned in the title, "outside of an incorporated city or town, shall first make application, by petition to the license board, as provided in section 2 of this act, of the county in which he proposes to engage in any such business, for a county license of the kind desired, and file the same, with the required license fee, with the county license collector, who shall present the same to said license board at its next regular meeting, and said board may refer the petition to the sheriff, who shall report upon the same at the following regular meeting of the board, which board shall then and there grant or refuse the license prayed for: Provided, that the sheriff may, in his discretion, grant a temporary permit to such applicant, valid only until the next regular meeting of said board.
The relator petitioned the license board of the county of Nye for a county license to engage in the business of conducting a softdrink establishment in the town of Tonopah, an unincorporated town, situated in said county, and filed his petition, together with the required license fee of $75, with the duly authorized license collector of said county. The license collector presented the petition to the board, which refused to take any action either granting or refusing a license to relator, and still retains the amount of the license fee in the sum of $75. In response to relator's request and demand for a license, he was informed by the board that it would take no action, either granting or refusing him a license, unless the court should compel such action.
The relator brings mandamus in this court to compel the said board to issue him a license to conduct the business mentioned in his petition. An alternative writ was issued out of this court, to which respondents answered, alleging, with other matters, that the act of 1921 is in direct conflict with certain portions of two former acts of the Legislature. It is also alleged in the answer that the board has no power or authority to act as a county license board, for the reason that said act of 1921 is in direct violation of and in conflict with section 17 of article 4 of the Constitution of the state of Nevada; and that said act is unconstitutional for the reason that the body of the act is broader than the title of the act, in that the title of the act provides for the regulation, issuance, and revocation of licenses for certain businesses in unincorporated cities and towns of the state of Nevada, while the body of the act provides for the regulation, issuance, and revocation of licenses for certain businesses outside of an incorporated city or town.
The first two objections as to the conflict of the act with other acts of the Legislature were not discussed by counsel for respondent, and consequently must be considered waived.
That part of section 17 of article 4 of the Constitution of the state of Nevada which it is claimed the act offends provides:
"Each law enacted by the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be briefly expressed in the title."
Although the act provides for the issuance of licenses for different kinds of business conducted in different localities, namely in unincorporated cities and towns and other places outside of an incorporated city and town, there is but one subject in the act, and that is the subject of licenses. Consequently the act cannot be declared invalid as embracing more than one subject, contrary to the express inhibition of the Constitution. It is true that this subject is restricted in the title to unincorporated cities and towns, and to this extent the body of the act is broader than...
To continue reading
Request your trial