State v. Hackmann, No. 23384.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtJames T. Blair
Citation292 Mo. 27,237 S.W. 742
PartiesSTATE ex rel. NIEDERMEYER et al., Directors of School Dist. of Columbia, v. HACKMANN, State Auditor.
Decision Date13 February 1922
Docket NumberNo. 23384.
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

[237 S.W. 743]

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Penal Institutions v. Becker, No. 31674.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 15, 1932
    ...to each other must not be joined in one bill, and the title must be a fair index of the matters in the bill. State ex rel. v. Hackmann, 292 Mo. 27; State v. Price, 229 Mo. 670; State ex inf. v. Borden, 164 Mo. 221; State ex rel. v. Miller, 100 Mo. 439. (4) The provisions of said section rel......
  • Edwards v. Business Men's Assurance Co., No. 38104.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 15, 1942
    ...529, 165 S.W. 1084; Southard v. Short, 320 Mo. 932, 8 S.W. (2d) 903; Kansas City v. Payne, 71 Mo. 159; State ex rel. Niedemeyer v. Hackman, 292 Mo. 27, 237 S.W. 742; City of Columbia v. Public Serv. Comm., 329 Mo. 38, 43 S.W. (2d) 813; Fidelity Adjustment Co. v. Cook, 339 Mo. 45, 95 S.W. (2......
  • Graves v. Purcell, No. 34169.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 30, 1935
    ...205 S.W. 633; Asel v. Jefferson City, 229 S.W. 1048; State ex inf. Barrett v. Imhoff, 238 S.W. 122; State ex rel. v. Hackman, 267 S.W. 611, 292 Mo. 27; City of Columbia v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 43 S.W. (2d) 816; 6 R.C.L., p. 78, secs. 77, 79, 80; Greene Co. v. Lydy, 263 Mo. 77, 172 S.W. 376; Pi......
  • State ex Inf. Attorney-General v. Curtis, No. 28264.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 17, 1928
    ...with the subject named in the title and is in violation of Section 28 of Article 4 of the Constitution. State ex rel. v. Hackmann, 292 Mo. 27; State ex rel. v. Roach, 258 Mo. 541; State ex inf. v. Armstrong, 286 S.W. 705. (2) Said provision is unconstitutional in that it changes and attempt......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
30 cases
  • State ex rel. Penal Institutions v. Becker, No. 31674.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 15, 1932
    ...to each other must not be joined in one bill, and the title must be a fair index of the matters in the bill. State ex rel. v. Hackmann, 292 Mo. 27; State v. Price, 229 Mo. 670; State ex inf. v. Borden, 164 Mo. 221; State ex rel. v. Miller, 100 Mo. 439. (4) The provisions of said section rel......
  • Edwards v. Business Men's Assurance Co., No. 38104.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 15, 1942
    ...529, 165 S.W. 1084; Southard v. Short, 320 Mo. 932, 8 S.W. (2d) 903; Kansas City v. Payne, 71 Mo. 159; State ex rel. Niedemeyer v. Hackman, 292 Mo. 27, 237 S.W. 742; City of Columbia v. Public Serv. Comm., 329 Mo. 38, 43 S.W. (2d) 813; Fidelity Adjustment Co. v. Cook, 339 Mo. 45, 95 S.W. (2......
  • Graves v. Purcell, No. 34169.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 30, 1935
    ...205 S.W. 633; Asel v. Jefferson City, 229 S.W. 1048; State ex inf. Barrett v. Imhoff, 238 S.W. 122; State ex rel. v. Hackman, 267 S.W. 611, 292 Mo. 27; City of Columbia v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 43 S.W. (2d) 816; 6 R.C.L., p. 78, secs. 77, 79, 80; Greene Co. v. Lydy, 263 Mo. 77, 172 S.W. 376; Pi......
  • State ex Inf. Attorney-General v. Curtis, No. 28264.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 17, 1928
    ...with the subject named in the title and is in violation of Section 28 of Article 4 of the Constitution. State ex rel. v. Hackmann, 292 Mo. 27; State ex rel. v. Roach, 258 Mo. 541; State ex inf. v. Armstrong, 286 S.W. 705. (2) Said provision is unconstitutional in that it changes and attempt......
  • 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