State v. Lewis
Decision Date | 01 May 1903 |
Docket Number | 1472 |
Citation | 72 P. 388,26 Utah 120 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | THE STATE OF UTAH ex relatione M. A. BREEDEN, Attorney-General, Relator, v. THOMAS D. LEWIS, Respondent |
Original action in quo warranto instituted by the Attorney-General, on behalf of the State, to oust the defendant from the office of district judge of the Third Judicial District.
OUSTER DENIED.
Hon. M A. Breeden, Attorney-General, and Hon. W. R. White, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
Messrs Frick & Edwards, Messrs. Pierce, Critchlow & Barrette Messrs. Young & Moyle and Messrs. Sutherland, Van Cott & Allison for respondent.
--In this case the Attorney-General filed an information in the nature of quo warranto, demanding that the defendant be ousted from the office of district judge of the Third Judicial District. This is an original proceeding in this court. The information states that the defendant was, on April 7, 1903, appointed to the office, by the Governor, in pursuance of an act entitled "An act to increase the number of judges for the Third Judicial District and for the appointment of one judge, pending the next general election," which was approved March 12, 1903 (Sess. Laws 1903, p. 50,c. 55); that such appointee qualified, is in possession and attempting to discharge the duties of the office, and claims the emoluments thereof; that his appointment was unlawful; and that he has no legal authority to exercise the functions of the office, unlawfully holds the same, and will continue to do so, if not ousted. The defendant filed an answer admitting his appointment to the office and qualification, and that he has possession and is discharging the duties thereof. It is averred that he holds the office lawfully, exercises its functions, and is entitled to the emoluments thereof, by virtue of the act of the Legislature referred to in the information, and of his appointment thereunder. The plaintiff demurred to the answer upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense.
The contention on behalf of the State is that the act of the Legislature, above referred to, and under which the appointment was made, is ultra vires, being in conflict, as is urged with sections 5 and 6, article 8, of the Constitution. That act is found in Sess. Laws 1903, c. 55, p. 50, and, so far as material here, reads as follows:
As will be observed the first section increases the number of judges in the Third Judicial District to four, and the second empowers the Governor to appoint one judge, and fixes the first term of office. It is claimed that the Constitution limits the number of district judges in the Third Judicial District to three, and that, therefore, the act, which increases the number to four, violates the fundamental law, and is void. It must be conceded that, if such a limitation exists, the act is void, and must be declared so. The question, then, is whether the Legislature transcended its power in this enactment. In determining this it must not be forgotten that that body exercises the functions of a co-ordinate branch of the state government. It is within its province to make laws. Its power to legislate upon all subjects and for all purposes of civil government is absolute, inherent, and plenary, except as limited or controlled by the Constitution of this State or of the United States. Being invested with such power, unless it acts in violation of constitutional restraint, the courts have no authority to declare its enactments void, however unnecessary or unwise they may be. Kimball v. Grantsville City, 19 Utah 368, 383-384, 57 P. 1, 45 L.R.A. 628. So, an enactment of the Legislature embraces within itself, by implication, a construction by a co-ordinate branch of the government, of the constitutional provisions relating to the subject of the legislation. Therefore a court, in construing the enactment, where the question of its constitutionality is involved in difficulty and doubt, will be strongly inclined to resolve such doubt in favor of its validity, and out of respect to the wisdom and integrity, loyalty and patriotism of the Legislature, its enactment will be presumed to be valid, until the contrary is shown beyond all reasonable doubt. In State v. Tingey, 24 Utah 225, 230, 67 P. 33, Mr. Justice Baskin, speaking for the court, said: "When the Legislature, by enactments, either impliedly or expressly construes a provision of a statute or a constitution, in doubtful cases the courts will accept the legislative construction, and enforce the provision in accordance therewith, if the ambiguous language of the provision is such as admits of such construction." Ogden V. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213, 270, 6 L.Ed. 606; Grenada County Supervisors v. Brown, 112 U.S. 261, 268, 5 S.Ct. 125, 28 L.Ed. 704.
It now becomes important to determine whether, in the light of these principles, the present enactment was made in violation of constitutional limitation. The provisions of the Constitution material to this decision, the same being found in article 8 thereof, read as follows: "The State shall be divided into seven judicial districts, for each of which, at least one, and not exceeding three judges, shall be chosen by the qualified electors thereof." Section 5. "The Legislature may change the limits of any judicial district or increase or decrease the number of districts, or the judges thereof." Section 6. "Until otherwise provided by law, the Judicial Districts of the State shall be constituted as follows: . . . Third District:--The counties of Summit, Salt Lake and Tooele, in which there shall be elected three district judges." Section 16. Was the Legislature inhibited by these provisions of the paramount law, from passing an act increasing the number of district judges to four in the Third Judicial District? The Attorney-General says it was, and, if this be true, then the act in question is void, and the construction which the Legislature put upon the constitutional provisions, is erroneous and must be discarded. If the provision in section 5 were to be considered independently of the others, and given general effect, without considering the conditions under which it was adopted, it would be clear that the number of judges of that district could never be increased, except by constitutional amendment. The several provisions, however, are in pari materia, and, under well-known rules of interpretation, must be construed together, and each given effect and operation, if possible; and in construing them the court should be mindful of the circumstances and conditions under which they were drafted and adopted by the framers of the Constitution. The interpretation...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Achenbach v. Kincaid
... ... effect." ( S. S. White Dental Mfg. Co. v ... Commonwealth, 212 Mass. 35, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 805, 98 ... N.E. 1056; Lewis' Sutherland Stat. Const., 2d ed., secs ... 230, 231; Fletcher v. Prather, 102 Cal. 413, 36 P ... 658; People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 481; ... subject of legislation, the act is not open to the objection ... of plurality of subjects." ( State v. Doherty, 3 ... Idaho 384, 29 P. 855; State v. Dolan, 13 Idaho 693, ... 92 P. 995, 14 L. R. A., N. S., 1259; Pioneer Irr. Dist ... v ... ...
-
American Bush v. City of South Salt Lake
...its history and plain language, but also from its functional relationship to other constitutional provisions"); State ex rel. Breeden v. Lewis, 26 Utah 120, 72 P. 388, 389 (1903) (indicating that when constitutional provisions "are in pari materia, . . . under well-known rules of interpreta......
-
Utah County, By and Through County Bd. of Equalization of Utah County v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc.
...use of the right of In commenting on the legislative construction of the Utah Constitution, this Court in State ex rel. Breeden v. Lewis, 26 Utah 120, 123, 72 P. 388, 389 (1903), eminent domain by a mining company to acquire a right-of-way to operate an aerial tramway to transport ore and o......
-
Gibbs v. Gibbs
...if it can be done by any reasonable construction, made to harmonize, and every part rendered effective. In the case of State v. Lewis, 26 Utah 120, 125, 72 P. 388 (recently decided by this court), Justice Bartch, for the court, tersely and correctly stated the rule as follows: "if possible,......