State v. Sayre

• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama
• Writing for the Court: HARALSON, J.
• Citation: 142 Ala. 641,39 So. 240
• Decision Date: 01 December 1904
• Parties: STATE EX REL. ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SAYRE, JUDGE.

39 So. 240

142 Ala. 641

STATE EX REL. ATTORNEY GENERAL
v.
SAYRE, JUDGE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 1, 1904

Proceeding in the nature of quo warranto by the state, on the relation of the Attorney General, against T. Scott Sayre, as judge of the Fifteenth judicial circuit of the state, to determine defendant's right to the office of judge. Ouster awarded.

Rehearing denied, April 27, 1905.

Tyson, Dowdell, and Denson, JJ., dissenting.

Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.

T. Scott Sayre, pro se.

HARALSON, J.

The purpose of the proceeding is to test the constitutionality of the act of the Legislature, "to create the Fifteenth judicial circuit of the state of Alabama, to be composed of the counties of Autauga, Chilton, Elmore and Montgomery," etc. Acts 1903, p. 488.

Section 106 of the Constitution provides, that "no special, private or local law shall be passed on any subject not enumerated in section 104 of this Constitution, except in reference to fixing the time of holding courts, unless notice of the intention to apply therefor shall have been published, without cost to the state, in the county or counties where the matter or thing to be affected may be situated,"--for a time and in a manner specified.

No notice of an intention to apply for the passage of this law was ever published. If the law is local, it is void for want of such notice, unless it is excepted from the provisions of said section by some other provision of the Constitution.

Section 110 of the Constitution defines a general, local and special law thus; "A general law within the meaning of this article is a law which applies to the whole state (in which section 106 is included); a local law is a law which applies to any political subdivision or subdivisions of the state less than the whole; a special or private law within the meaning of this article is one which applies to an individual, association or corporation."

The terms "general law," and "special and local law," were used in the Constitution of 1875, §§ 23-25, 50, and this court had occasion before this present Constitution was adopted to define the meaning of a general law.

The term in the two Constitutions is identical in meaning. The court said: "In specifying the limitations upon the powers of the legislative department (article 4, §§ 23-25, 50), the constitution uses the term 'general laws.' A proper construction of these constitutional provisions would exclude the definition of a 'public statute' as distinguished from a general statute, that is a statute operating upon the public within the limits of a locality, less than the whole state. The terms 'general law' and 'public law' are frequently used synonymously, but they are not the equivalent of each other. Every general law is necessarily a public law, but every public law, as defined, is not a general law. A 'general law,' as used in our constitution, is a law which operates throughout the state, alike upon all the people or all of a class. * * * Any law affecting the public within the limits of the county, or community, would be a public law, though not a general law within the meaning of our constitution. The effect of a statute, more than its wording or phraseology, must determine its character as a public, general, special or local statute." Holt v. Mayor and Aldermen of Birmingham, 111 Ala. 372, 373, 19 So. 735, 736.

It has been said, "the term 'local' as applied to statutes is of modern origin, and is used to designate an act which operates only within a single city, county or other particular division or place, and not throughout the entire legislative jurisdiction. In this sense, the term 'local' is...