State v. Gideon

Decision Date15 February 1919
Docket NumberNo. 21234.,21234.
Citation210 S.W. 358,277 Mo. 356
PartiesSTATE ex rel. GREENE COUNTY v. GIDEON, Mayor, et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

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.

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 article 3 of chapter 84 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri of 1909, with all amendments thereto, said article being entitled `Cities of the second class,' and to enact in lieu thereof a new article providing for the government of cities of the second class,"' by repealing subdivision fortieth of said act and enacting a new subdivision in lieu thereof." Laws Mo. 1917, P. 357.

Subdivision 40, above referred to and herein relied on by appellant as furnishing its sole right to the money demanded from respondent city, reads thus:

"Fortieth.—To have the exclusive power to define, regulate, restrain, suppress, license and tax dramshops and to revoke dramshop licenses, and to regulate and control the giving or selling of intoxicating liquors at any place or places in such cities: Provided that for every dramshop license issued by a city of the second class it shall pay to the state the sum of $400.00 per annum in quarterly installments; to the county, for county purposes, the sum of $400 per annum in quarterly installments; and to any special road district in which said city may be located $550 per annum in quarterly installments, and the balance shall be paid into the treasury of such city, for municipal purposes. Provided, further, that no special road district within which such County [city] may be located shall be entitled to any part of the amount paid by such city to the county." Laws 1917, § 8, p. 367.

It is clear that appellant is entitled to the money demanded and should prevail, if subdivision fortieth is valid. But respondent, admitting so much, urges that for numerous reasons said subdivision is invalid, because its provisions are in irreconcilable conflict with other provisions of the amended act, and because both its title and contents offend against express provisions of the Constitution.

In the view which we are constrained to take of this case we need burden the books with but one of respondents' contentions touching the unconstitutionality of the act.

That one is that—

"It conflicts with that provision of the Constitution which reads: `No bill * * * shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.'" Section 28, art. 4, Const.

Whether this contention is well taken may be demonstrated by a reference to the legislative history and career (the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • State ex Inf. Attorney-General v. Curtis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 17, 1928
    ... ... 27; State ex rel. v. Roach, 258 Mo. 541; State v. Rawlings, 232 Mo. 544; State v. Great Western Co., 171 Mo. 634; St. Louis v. Wortman, 213 Mo. 131; 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. 529. (5) The act denies to citizens and owners of property within the district and adjoining the district the equal protection of law in ... ...
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Carolene Products
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 9, 1940
    ... ... Wipke, 133 S.W. (2d) 358. (f) Where title of act expressly states it repeals prior act, title of original act must be considered in ruling the question involved. State ex rel. v. Calvird, 338 Mo. 601, 92 S.W. (2d) 184; Sherrill v. Brantley, 334 Mo. 497, 66 S.W. (2d) 529; State ex rel. v. Gideon, 277 Mo. 356, 210 S.W. 358. (g) After the lapse of many years during which an act has been acted upon as a valid law, objections to its validity on this ground will not be considered. Goodner v. Mosher, 314 Mo. 151, 282 S.W. 698. (h) Under this section each case must be decided on its own peculiar ... ...
  • Sherrill v. Brantley
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 22, 1933
    ... ... render the statute constitutional, it is the duty of the ... court to adopt the construction which is constitutional ... State ex rel. Hawes v. Mason, 153 Mo. 49; State ... ex rel. Tel. Co. v. Atkinson, 271 Mo. 42; State ex ... rel. Carpenter v. St. Louis, 318 Mo. 870; ... 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 ... ...
  • State ex rel. Becker v. Wellston Sewer Dist. of St. Louis County
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 21, 1933
    ... ... to or mentioned in the title. So far as the title gave ... information to the Legislature, it might as well have 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. Imhoff, 291 Mo ... 603. (6) It is invalid because it violates Section 53 of ... Article IV of the Constitution of the ... ...
  • 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