State v. Hackmann

• Decision Date: 13 February 1922
• Docket Number: No. 23384.,23384.
• Citation: 292 Mo. 27,237 S.W. 742
• Parties: STATE ex rel. NIEDERMEYER et al., Directors of School Dist. of Columbia, v. HACKMANN, State Auditor.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

237 S.W. 742

292 Mo. 27

STATE ex rel. NIEDERMEYER et al., Directors of School Dist. of Columbia, v. HACKMANN, State Auditor.

No. 23384.

Supreme Court of Missouri, in Banc.

February 13, 1922.

Original proceedings in mandamus by the State at the relation of F. W. Niedermeyer and others, Directors of the School District of Columbia, Mo., against George E. Hackmann, State Auditor. Alternative writ made peremptory.

Wm. H. Sapp, of Columbia (Harry Carstarphen, of Hannibal, of counsel), for relators.

Jesse W. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Henry Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant

JAMES T. BLAIR, C. J.

Mandamus. Relators constitute the board of education of the school district of Columbia, Mo. The purpose of this proceeding is to compel the State Auditor to register certain bonds of the district. Respondent's admissions are such that no question arises concerning the calling or holding (except in one particular) of the bond election or any of the subsequent proceedings or the form of the bonds proffered for registration. There is no claim the district was not empowered to issue bonds in the amount here involved. The single objection respondent makes to registering the bonds is that the notice of election did not state the particular rate of interest the bonds were to bear. His sole contention is that the act of March 31, 1921 (Laws 1921, pp. 169, 170), required the statement of that rate in the notice of election, and that the absence from the notice of that statement renders it his duty to refuse registration.

The contention of relators is that the provision of the act referred to respecting the statement of the rate of interest in the election notice Is invalid because: (1) a is vague and indefinite; (2) the title of the act is defective; and (3) the title of the act does not include the provision mentioned, and that provision was not therefore validly enacted when section 28 of article 4 of the Constitution is considered.

The title to the act in question reads as follows:

"An act providing that bonds hereafter issued under any law of the state of Missouri by any county, city, town, village, school district, or other municipality, political subdivision or district may bear interest at any rate not exceeding six per cent. per annum, and that such bonds may be sold at not less than ninety-five per cent. of the par value thereof, with an emergency clause."

The act itself, omitting the emergency clause, reads thus:

"Section 1. Rate of Interest of Bonds—Minimum; Par Value. That any and all bonds hereafter authorized to be issued under any law of this state by any county, city, town, village, school district, or other municipality, political subdivision or district of this state, may bear interest at a rate not exceeding six per cent. (6%) per annum, and may be sold, at any sale pursuant to any law applicable thereto, at the best price obtainable, not less than ninety-five per cent. (95%) of the par value thereof, anything in any proceedings heretofore had authorizing such bonds or in any law of this state to the contrary notwithstanding; `provided, that, in every election hereafter held for the purpose of authorizing an issue of bonds the maximum rate of interest such bonds are to bear shall be stated in the notice of such election.'"

The proviso in section 1 is the part of the act said to fall outside the title.

I. Section 28 of article 4 of the Constitution provides that—

"No bill * * * shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title."

It is uniformly held that this provision is to be liberally construed; that its purpose is to have the title indicate the general contents of the act; that if the contents of the act fairly relate to and have a natural connection with the subject expressed in the title they fall within the title. On the other hand, provisions incongruous in their subject-matter may not be enacted in the same act. The subject must be single. In addition to being single, the subject must be clearly expressed in the title; the title must not mislead as to the contents of the act.

II. There is no contention that the Legislature might not constitutionally legislate in one act respecting the maximum interest rate and the minimum price which might be accepted for bonds. It is apparent these things pertain to one general subject and are particulars which are congruous and may be included in one act. State ex rel. v. Miller, 100 Mo. loc. cit. 443, et seq., 13 S. W. 677.

III. The question is whether the subject, as clearly expressed in the title, is not thereby confined and restricted by its statement of particulars so as to exclude the substance of the proviso. The title must not mislead. State ex...