Storrs v. Heck
Decision Date | 22 June 1939 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 297. |
Citation | 238 Ala. 196,190 So. 78 |
Parties | STORRS v. HECK, STATE COMPTROLLER, ET AL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Walter B. Jones Judge.
Petition of Seth P. Storrs for declaratory judgment against I. C Heck, as State Comptroller, and Thomas S. Lawson, as Attorney General. From a judgment favorable to respondents, petitioner appeals.
Affirmed.
Wm. R Rountree, Jr., and Pettus & Fuller, all of Selma, and Richard T. Rives and Hill, Hill, Whiting & Rives, all of Montgomery, for appellant.
Thos. S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and Wm. H. Loeb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
The petition sought a declaratory judgment as to salary alleged to be due and unpaid by the State of Alabama. Bagwell v. Woodward Iron Co., 236 Ala. 668, 184 So. 692.
The final decree from which the appeal was taken is in the following words:
The respondents as comptroller and as Attorney General of Alabama for answer to the contentions of petitioner, which are fully stated in paragraphs one to three inclusive of the bill of complaint, among other things state the following:
Several pertinent propositions of law have been established in this jurisdiction. In Houston County et al. v. Martin, 232 Ala. 511, 169 So. 13, 16, it is stated:
It is insisted here that a city or municipal corporation is not a subdivision of the state to be included in an amendment by the Senate to the Sparks amendment as it was originally passed by the House. Were the words "state or any subdivision thereof", as used in the original bill, sufficient to support an amendment in the Senate reading "State or any County or Municipality thereof"?
The purpose of the constitutional amendment in question was to authorize the Legislature to repeal constitutional limitations so as to reduce the salaries or compensation of state officers so as to avoid further tax levies and a deficit in the state treasury. Gen.Acts 1933, Ex.Sess., pp. 46 to 48 (Amend. 26A); Const.1901, §§ 22, 150, 281 and 284.
It has been declared that such was the history of the Sparks amendment and the purpose therefor is set out in Houston County v. Martin, supra.
Whether the organic law has been effectually amended is a judicial question. State ex rel. Garrow et al. v. Grayson, 220 Ala. 12, 20, 123 So. 573.
Under Sections 284-287, inclusive, of the Constitution, it is not essential that the Legislative Journals affirmatively show that the required three readings of the proposed amendment were had in haec verba in both houses. Jones v. McDade, 200 Ala. 230, 75 So. 988; In re Opinions of the Justices, 223 Ala. 365, 136 So. 585; In re Opinions of the Justices, 227 Ala. 296, 149 So. 781; Doody v. State ex rel. Mobile County, 233 Ala. 287, 171 So. 504.
It is further declared by this Court that bills proposing amendments to the Constitution may be duly amended in substance and in legal effect as a "legislative detail" dufing the course of the legislative procedure for the purpose of desired perfection and harmony to meet the effective purpose of the enactment within the rules that obtain in such matters. In re Opinions of the Justices, 223 Ala. 365, 136 So. 585; Jones v. McDade, supra.
It follows that a substantial and legally efficient compliance with the constitutional requirements of Section 284 of the Constitution, as to "legislative details", necessary in amendments of the organic law is sufficient. Doody v. State ex rel. Mobile County, 233 Ala. 287, 171 So. 504; State ex rel. Garrow et al. v. Grayson, 220 Ala. 12, 123 So. 573; Johnson v. Craft, 205 Ala. 386, 87 So. 375; Realty Investment Co. v. City of Mobile, 181 Ala. 184, 61 So. 248.
In Doody v. State ex rel. Mobile County, 233 Ala. 287, 290, 171 So. 504, 506, it is well observed:
We will permit the learned counsel for appellant to state the question presented for decision and insisted upon in argument substantially as follows:
This case involves the question of whether or not the Sparks amendment to the Constitution of Alabama, Article XXIV, was constitutionally adopted, in addition to the question of whether or not the Constitution may be suspended, as suggested in the case of Houston County v. Martin, 232 Ala. 511, 169 So. 13.
The petition avers that Mr. Storrs was Commissioner of Agriculture from January 1931 to 1935, and that on account of the enactment of the Lapsley-Lusk Bill, Gen.Acts 193...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Magee v. Boyd
...and spirit of section 284 of the Constitution, and must be declared null and void." 223 Ala. at 369, 136 So. at 588. In Storrs v. Heck, 238 Ala. 196, 190 So. 78 (1939), a constitutional amendment was challenged on the ground that certain procedural requirements set forth in the Constitution......
-
Magee v. Boyd, 1130987, 1131020, 1131021.
...letter and spirit of section 284 of the Constitution, and must be declared and void.” 223 Ala. at 369, 136 So. at 588.In Storrs v. Heck, 238 Ala. 196, 190 So. 78 (1939), a constitutional amendment was challenged on the ground that certain procedural requirements set forth in the Constitutio......
-
Haralson v. State ex rel. King
...861; Cole v. Gullatt, 241 Ala. 669, 4 So.2d 412; Board of Education of Jefferson County v. State, 239 Ala. 276, 194 So. 881; Storrs v. Heck, 238 Ala. 196, 190 So. 78; McCreless v. Tennessee Valley Bank, 208 Ala. 414, 94 So. 722; State ex rel. City of Birmingham v. Board of Revenue of Jeffer......
-
Downs v. City of Birmingham
... ... But we have in several of them, ... without argument, treated the amendment as effective as ... against such claim. Storrs v. Heck, 238 Ala. 196, ... 190 So. 78; Houston County v. Martin, 232 Ala. 511, ... 169 So. 13; State v. Stone, 235 Ala. 233, 178 So ... 18; State ... ...