Taylor v. Frohmiller
Decision Date | 06 June 1938 |
Docket Number | Civil 3989 |
Citation | 52 Ariz. 211,79 P.2d 961 |
Parties | J. J. TAYLOR, W. R. WAYLAND and J. J. DURKIN, Petitioners, v. ANA FROHMILLER, as State Auditor of the State of Arizona, Respondent |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Original proceeding in Mandamus. Petition for writ denied.
Mr George D. Locke, for Petitioners.
Mr. Joe Conway, Attorney General of Arizona, and Mr. Earl Anderson Special Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
J. J. Taylor, W. R. Wayland and J. J. Durkin, hereinafter called plaintiffs, filed this original petition for a writ of mandamus against Ana Frohmiller, state auditor, hereinafter called defendant, praying that she be required to approve certain claims for the salary of petitioners, as members of the Unemployment Compensation Commission, which they claimed under section 6 of chapter 68 of the regular session of the thirteenth legislatute. The petition set up, in substance, that they had been appointed as members of the Unemployment Compensation Commission, and that by section 6 of chapter 68, supra, they were entitled to salaries from July 1, 1937, to December 31, 1937, in the amount set up in their respective claims, but that defendant had refused to approve such claims. Defendant answered, admitting the filing of the claim, and that she had refused to submit or approve it for the reason that section 6 of chapter 68, supra, was unconstitutional, as being in violation of sections 13 and 14 of part 2, article 4 of the Constitution of Arizona. The facts are not in dispute, and may be stated as follows:
In its first special session, 1936, the twelfth legislature adopted chapter 13, being what is commonly called the unemployment compensation law. Section 10 of said chapter reads as follows:
It will be seen that subdivision (a) of the section creates a commission of three members, and provides that they shall hold office co-terminous with the governor who appoints them, but fails entirely to provide for any salaries for them. In 1937, the thirteenth legislature concluded that chapter 13, supra, needed amendment in a number of particulars, and it adopted chapter 68 at its regular session in that year. This chapter bears the following title: "An Act Relating to Unemployment Compensation, and Amending Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 18, 19, and 22, Chapter 13, Session Laws of 1936, First Special Session." It is quite lengthy and we need consider only section 6 thereof, which reads as follows:
It will be noted, in the first place, that the title of the act in no way mentions section 10 of chapter 13, supra, as one of the sections to be amended, and that in the body of the act only subdivision (a) of section 10, supra, is set forth as amended. The sections of the Constitution referred to above read as follows:
It is contended by defendant that section 6 of chapter 68, supra, is unconstitutional for two reasons: first, that the title of the act contains no reference to any amendment to be made to section 10 of chapter 13; and second, that section 6, which purports to amend a certain portion of section 10, supra, does not set forth section 10 in full as amended, as required by section 14, supra, of the Constitution, but only a portion of the section.
We have considered the purpose and meaning of these two provisions of the Constitution in a number of cases, the first being Board of Control of State of Arizona v. Buckstegge, 18 Ariz. 277, 284, 158 P. 837, 840. Therein we said:
There can be no doubt that this is the purpose of constitutional provisions of this kind, but we have held, in common with most other courts which have passed on the subject, that it is not necessary that the title of the act should be a complete index to the legislation contained therein. As was said in Re Hauck, 70 Mich. 396, 38 N.W. 269, and quoted approvingly by us in Board of Control of State of Arizona v. Buckstegge, supra:
" ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Valley National Bank of Phoenix v. Glover
...decisions of this court. Taylor v. Frohmiller, 52 Ariz. 211, 79 P.2d 961; Board of Control v. Buckstegge, 18 Ariz. 277, 158 P. 837. In the Taylor case the title of the act appeared as "An relating to unemployment compensation, and amending" certain specified sections of a prior law. Laws 19......
-
State ex rel. Corbin v. Goodrich, 2
...embraced in the act." White v. Kaibab Road Improvement District, 113 Ariz. 209, 211, 550 P.2d 80, 82 (1976), citing Taylor v. Frohmiller, 52 Ariz. 211, 79 P.2d 961 (1938). The broad legislation under the Consumer Fraud Act includes those subjects related to trade and commerce. We find the u......
-
Lewkowitz, In re, 5235
...of Control of State of Arizona v. Buckstegge, 18 Ariz. 277, 158 P. 837, 840; In re Miller, 29 Ariz. 582, 244 P. 376; Taylor v. Frohmiller, 52 Ariz. 211, 79 P.2d 961; and Morris v. State, 40 Ariz. 32, 9 P.2d 404, are in harmony with the rule now reaffirmed for in them we say that the title i......
-
Litchfield Elementary School Dist. No. 79 of Maricopa County v. Babbitt
...liberal" as to render the constitutional requirements nugatory. State v. Sutton, 115 Ariz. 417, 565 P.2d 1278 (1977); Taylor v. Frohmiller, 52 Ariz. 211, 79 P.2d 961 (1938). The word "subject" as used in provisions such as article 4, part 2, section 13 was comprehensively defined in the cas......