State v. Gideon, No. 21234.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtFaris
Citation210 S.W. 358,277 Mo. 356
Decision Date15 February 1919
Docket NumberNo. 21234.
PartiesSTATE ex rel. GREENE COUNTY v. GIDEON, Mayor, et al.
210 S.W. 358
277 Mo. 356
STATE ex rel. GREENE COUNTY
v.
GIDEON, Mayor, et al.
No. 21234.
Supreme Court of Missouri, in Banc.
February 15, 1919.
Rehearing Denied March 15, 1919.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; Guy D. Kirby, Judge.

Action by the State, on relation of Greene County, to compel J. J. Gideon, Mayor, and E. F. James and others, as Commissioners of the City of Springfield, to audit and pay the county certain money. Judgment for defendants, and relator appeals. Affirmed.

[210 S.W. 359]

Warren L. White and Oliver J. Page, both of Springfield, for appellant.

Fred A. Moon, of Springfield, for respondents.

FARIS, J.


The county of Greene, as relator, brought this action by mandamus in the circuit court of Greene county against the respondents herein, who constitute the mayor and the commissioners, respectively, of the city of Springfield; said city being under a commission form of government. Upon a trial nisi plaintiff lost, and after the conventional procedure has appealed.

The facts of the case are few and simple. In 1917 the Legislature amended a certain section of the chapter of the Revised Statutes of Missouri which governs cities of the second class, in such wise, it is averred and contended by appellant, as to require cities of the second class—such as the city of Springfield is—to pay to the county wherein such a city is located the sum of $400 per annum for every dramshop license issued. This action is brought by Greene county for the purpose of compelling respondents to audit and pay to that county the sum of $5,900, which is cæteris paribus its proportionate part of all the dramshop license taxes which were collected by the city of Springfield during the period embraced in this controversy. Respondents having refused to pay the above sum of $5,900, which is conceded to be correct if the act under which the same is demanded is valid, Greene county instituted this action, and, as stated, having lost below, has appealed.

The defense, among others urged by respondents, as excusing their refusal to pay the amount demanded, is that the act under which appellant bottoms its demand for payment is unconstitutional. The grounds of unconstitutionality of the act of 1917 so urged by respondent are: (a) Because the act is in conflict with section 28 of article 4 of the Constitution, which provides that "no bill * * * shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title;" (b) because said act violates sections 1 and 10 of article 10 of the Constitution, in that it levies a direct tax upon cities of the second class of $400 per year for the benefit of the county in which a city of the second class is located, for each and every saloon license issued by such city; and (c) because, if such levy of the tax aforesaid is not in fact a tax, then the act of 1917 is a grant of the public money of the city by the Legislature to the county in which the city is located, contrary to sections 46 and 47 of article 4 of the Constitution of Missouri.

Other contentions, as forecast, are made, but since one of these at least has already been decided against respondent, and as in the view we take of the case mention of others is unnecessary, we content ourselves with the above recital of respondents' contentions. We think the above facts, together with such others as we shall find it necessary to refer to in our discussion of the points made in the case, will be sufficient to an understanding thereof.

Appellant bottoms its right to demand from the city of Springfield payment of the sum here in dispute upon subdivision 40 of section 8 of "An act to amend an act approved on the 26th day of March, 1915, entitled, `An act to amend section 8 of an act, approved on the 25th day of March; 1913, entitled "An act to repeal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Penal Institutions v. Becker, No. 31674.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 15, 1932
    ...the original act matters not germane thereto requires specific mention of such purpose in the title of the act. State ex rel. v. Gideon, 277 Mo. 356; State ex rel. v. Gordon, 233 Mo. 383; Vice v. Kirksville, 280 Mo. 348. (6) If a section is to be amended the title should give notice of the ......
  • State ex rel. Transport Mfg. Co. v. Bates, No. 41456.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 14, 1949
    ...Mo. 305, 167 S.W. 500; State v. McEniry, 269 Mo. 228, 190 S.W. 272; State v. Crites, 277 Mo. 194, 209 S.W. 863; State ex rel. v. Gideon, 277 Mo. 356, 210 S.W. 358; Vice v. Kirksville, 280 Mo. 348, 217 S.W. 97; State ex inf. v. Imhoff, 291 Mo. 603, 238 S.W. 122; Southard v. Short, 8 S.W. (2d......
  • State ex Inf. Attorney-General v. Curtis, No. 28264.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 17, 1928
    ...State v. Fulks, 207 Mo. 26; State v. McEniry, 269 Mo. 228; State ex inf. v. Borden, 164 Mo. 221; State ex rel. Greene County v. Gideon, 277 Mo. 356; City of Kansas v. Payne, 71 Mo. 159; Vice v. Kirksville, 280 Mo. 348; Berry v. Majestic Co., 284 Mo. 182; State ex rel. v. Revelle, 257 Mo. 52......
  • State ex rel. Becker v. Wellston Sewer Dist., No. 31656.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 21, 1933
    ...had no title. Each case must be decided according to its own peculiar facts. Sec. 28, Article IV, Const. of Mo.; State ex rel. v. Gideon, 277 Mo. 356; Nitzmann v. Railroad, 131 Mo. 612; In re Burris, 66 Mo. 442; State v. Sloan, 258 Mo. 305; State v. Hurley, 258 Mo. 275; State ex inf. v. Imh......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • State ex rel. Penal Institutions v. Becker, No. 31674.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 15, 1932
    ...the original act matters not germane thereto requires specific mention of such purpose in the title of the act. State ex rel. v. Gideon, 277 Mo. 356; State ex rel. v. Gordon, 233 Mo. 383; Vice v. Kirksville, 280 Mo. 348. (6) If a section is to be amended the title should give notice of the ......
  • State ex rel. Transport Mfg. Co. v. Bates, No. 41456.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 14, 1949
    ...Mo. 305, 167 S.W. 500; State v. McEniry, 269 Mo. 228, 190 S.W. 272; State v. Crites, 277 Mo. 194, 209 S.W. 863; State ex rel. v. Gideon, 277 Mo. 356, 210 S.W. 358; Vice v. Kirksville, 280 Mo. 348, 217 S.W. 97; State ex inf. v. Imhoff, 291 Mo. 603, 238 S.W. 122; Southard v. Short, 8 S.W. (2d......
  • State ex Inf. Attorney-General v. Curtis, No. 28264.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 17, 1928
    ...State v. Fulks, 207 Mo. 26; State v. McEniry, 269 Mo. 228; State ex inf. v. Borden, 164 Mo. 221; State ex rel. Greene County v. Gideon, 277 Mo. 356; City of Kansas v. Payne, 71 Mo. 159; Vice v. Kirksville, 280 Mo. 348; Berry v. Majestic Co., 284 Mo. 182; State ex rel. v. Revelle, 257 Mo. 52......
  • Sherrill v. Brantley, No. 30783.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 22, 1933
    ...a part of the original Act of 1927 (Session Acts of 1927, p. 252). State ex rel. v. County Court, 128 Mo. 441; State ex rel. v. Gideon, 277 Mo. 356. (b) Since the title to the amendatory Act of 1929 contains no expression of the subject matter of the act further than a purpose to repeal cer......
  • 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