State v. Field

Decision Date17 January 1894
Citation24 S.W. 752,119 Mo. 593
PartiesSTATE ex rel. AULL, Prosecuting Attorney, v. FIELD, Judge, et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Bill by the state on the relation of William Aull, prosecuting attorney of La Fayette county, to restrain Richard Field as judge, Charles Ewing as clerk of court, and Z. W. Wright as sheriff of said county, from carrying into effect the provisions of Act April 19, 1893. Judgment dismissing the bill. Relator appeals. Affirmed.

Wm. Aull, Pros. Atty., Wallace & Chiles, Shewalter & Wilson, Alex. Graves, John S. Blackwell, Wm. Young, and John Welborn, for appellant. Samuel Davis and Leslie Orear, for respondents.

GANTT, J.

This is a proceeding by the prosecuting attorney of La Fayette county, against Judge Field and the clerk of the circuit court and sheriff of said county, to restrain them from carrying out the provisions of "An act to repeal an act approved February 14th, 1893, entitled An act to repeal section 43 of the Acts of 1892, (extra session,) approved April 7th, 1892, entitled An act to redistrict the state into judicial circuits, and fix the terms of the courts therein, and to enact a new section in lieu thereof, to be known as section 43, and providing for holding two terms of court at Higginsville, in La Fayette county," approved April 19, 1893.

Among other things, the petition alleges that the act in question, providing for two terms of the circuit court to be held at Higginsville, is unconstitutional; and that Richard Field, circuit judge, William L. Ewing, circuit clerk, and Zachariah W. Wright, sheriff, propose to carry out said enactment as they are required to do by said alleged act, to wit, said Richard Field, as such judge, is about to select a place for the holding of two terms of said court at Higginsville, and offices for the clerk and juries of said court, etc. It is claimed by the plaintiff that the act in question is void for various reasons, among which are the following: "Because the act of February 14, 1893, known as the `House Bill No. 31,' (as shown by the journal,) is in violation of the constitution of the state, in that the subject thereof is not clearly expressed in the title; in that the said title purports only to be a repealing act, while the body of the bill purports to be an act re-enacting a new section, fixing the terms of the circuit and criminal courts throughout the fifteenth judicial circuit, including Johnson county; and that house bill No. 603, (or the bill in question,) being by its title and terms an act to repeal, or amendatory of, a void law, and an effort to re-enact a new law in lieu thereof, is necessarily void with the law it purports to amend." (2) "That said purported act is also void for the reason that said bill purported to originate in the house of representatives, and, being passed, was sent to the senate for action. That as said act passed the house its title read as follows: `An act to repeal an act approved February 14th, 1893, entitled An act to repeal section 43 of the Acts of 1892, (extra session,) approved April 7th, 1892, entitled An act to redistrict the state into judicial circuits and to fix the terms of courts therein.' In the senate the title was amended by adding thereto the words: `And to enact a new section in lieu thereof, to be known as section 43, and to provide for the holding of two terms of court at Higginsville, in La Fayette county." That, as said bill originally passed in the house, it was null and void for the want of proper title, and that the title thereto first became complete, if at all, in the senate, and, being returned to the house, the amendment so received was not printed after engrossment before its final passage, as provided for by the constitution, and so violates sections 29-31 of article 4 of the constitution; and said bill, after amendment of the title in the senate for the first time, if at all, contained a valid title, and hence, within the meaning of the constitution, originated in the senate, and, being sent to the house, was not read therein on three different days." (4) "That said purported act is void, and in violation of the constitution of this state, for the reason that it attempts to authorize municipal funds raised by municipal taxation for municipal purposes to be misapplied to the renting of a courthouse and clerk's office for the judicial department of the state government." (5) "That said act is a local or special act in the following particulars, to wit: (a) It attempts to provide a mode of establishing and maintaining a courthouse, and paying the expense therefor, different from the mode and manner in which our courthouses are maintained, and expenses paid. (b) It imposes a duty and authority upon the judge of the circuit court of La Fayette county in addition to and different from the powers and duties held and possessed by other circuit judges throughout the state. (c) It affects by special legislation the title of real estate, and provides when and where certain real estate may be sold; all of which could be reached by general law upon the respective subjects. (d) That it imposes upon respondent Judge Field the duty of furnishing the courthouse, and authorizes him to create a debt therefor against La Fayette county, whereas that object can be, and in fact is, reached by general law. It is the duty of the county courts to furnish courthouses, and they alone can be authorized in first instance to do so." (6) "Said bill No. 603 further violated the constitution of the state in that by its title it only purports to repeal an act and establish a court at Higginsville, while in its body it attempts to fix time for holding court and terms of court in La Fayette, Pettis, and Saline counties also." (7) "Said act approved February, 1893, and said other act approved April 19, 1893, are, singly and combined, violative of the twenty-eighth section of article 4 of the constitution of the state as to the title and contents thereof; and said act approved April 19, 1893, is also in violation of sections 25-34 and 53 of article 4, and sections 11 and 12 of article 10, of said constitution." The answer of defendant, after admitting the passage of the acts in question, denies that the act purporting to establish two terms of court at Higginsville is unconstitutional, which is followed by a general denial. Both parties waived a hearing for a temporary injunction, and the cause was heard on its merits for final determination. Upon hearing, house journal of session 1893 was introduced in evidence so far as it related to the passage of the acts called in question by the petition. Judge Field, Sheriff Wright, and Clerk Ewing were called, all of whom stated that it was their purpose to carry out the terms of the act, as directed therein, for the establishment of a court at Higginsville. The case was tried on its merits before Hon. E. J. Broaddus, of the seventh judicial circuit, who was called in by Judge Field to try the case. Upon a hearing of the case the court found the issues for the defendants, and rendered a judgment dismissing the relator's bill.

Much unnecessary discussion will be avoided if we determine at the outset the relation the act of April 19, 1893, bears to the act of February 14, 1893. If it was a repeal of the former act, and the adoption of a new section in lieu thereof, then we are relieved of passing upon the constitutionality of the act of February 14th. The constitution furnishes the test by which the intention of the legislature is to be ascertained. It requires that the statute should be confined to one subject, "which shall be clearly expressed in its title." The title to this act of April 19, is "An act to repeal an act approved February 14th, entitled," etc., "and to enact a new section in lieu thereof." The purpose is expressed in plain and unambiguous language. No amount of argument, analysis, or verbal criticism can throw any additional light upon the meaning of these words. They need no construction, and we shall attempt none. The act itself contains but two sections. The first enacts that the act of February 14, 1893, be, and it is hereby, repealed, and "the following new sections enacted in lieu thereof." The body of the act conforms in every essential particular to the title, and leaves no doubt on the subject. It is perhaps due to the learned counsel for relator...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 cases
  • State v. Fort
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 12, 1908
    .......         In banc. Petition by the state, on the relation of A. Judah, for a writ of prohibition, prohibiting James L. Fort, judge, from trying a criminal case. Writ awarded. .         A. L. Cooper and Frank M. Lowe, for relator. I. B. Kimbrell and R. H. Field, for respondent. .         LAMM, J. . .         This is an original proceeding in prohibition. Such preliminary and intermediate steps were had in the cause that, when finally submitted, it stood on an implied concession that allegations of fact well pleaded in the petition were ......
  • Bonnet v. State
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • February 11, 1976
    ...... The latter do not. .         At trial, Steven Rother, the Newark Tax Collector, (Rother) testified as to the status of real estate in Newark and the operations of Newark in the real estate field. There are 47,000 separate line items, reflecting a like number of lots or parcels, on Newark's tax books. 60% Of the tax parcels are tax exempt. He also testified that 60% Of the ratable base in terms of value is tax exempt as well. He explained that the relationship in the percentages is ......
  • State ex rel. Field v. Smith
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 15, 1932
  • Carlton v. Grimes
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • September 23, 1946
    ......    A suit in equity by the plaintiff, as a resident taxpayer of Johnson County, Iowa, and a purchaser of motor vehicle gasoline fuel in the state, allegedly on behalf of himself and all others in like situation, to enjoin the Treasurer of the State from collecting the one cent additional tax on ...Bank, 269 Ill. 518, 110 N.E. 38;Allopathic State Board v. Fowler, 50 La.Ann. 1358, 24 So. 809;State ex rel. Aull v. Field, 119 Mo. 593, 24 S.W. 752;People v. Supervisors of Chenango County, 8 N.Y. 317;Evanhoff v. State Industrial Accident Commission, 78 Or. 503, 154 P. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT