Thurston County Farm Bureau v. Thurston County
| Decision Date | 11 July 1939 |
| Docket Number | 30706. |
| Citation | 287 N.W. 180,136 Neb. 575 |
| Parties | THURSTON COUNTY FARM BUREAU v. THURSTON COUNTY ET AL. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Under the provisions of section 2-1113, Comp.St.Supp.1937, where there is submitted to the voters of a county at a general election the question of whether or not an appropriation shall be made for the support of agricultural extension work in a county where such support was not being granted when the act was passed, the proposition, in order to authorize the appropriation, must receive a majority of all votes cast at the election at which the proposition is submitted.
Appeal from District Court, Thurston County; Ryan, Judge.
Action by the Thurston County Farm Bureau against the County of Thurston and others for a declaratory judgment construing the statute dealing with a general election on the question whether an appropriation shall be made for the support of agricultural extension work in a county and to determine the plaintiff's rights and status. From an adverse judgment the plaintiff appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
A. P Coleman, of Walthill, and Perry, Van Pelt & Marti, of Lincoln, for appellant.
Alfred D. Raun, of Walthill, for appellees.
Heard before SIMMONS, C. J., ROSE, EBERLY, PAINE MESSMORE, and JOHNSEN, JJ., and LANDIS, District Judge.
This is an action for a declaratory judgment construing section 2-1113, Comp.St.Supp.1937. The matter was submitted upon an agreed statement of facts. The plaintiff herein is a duly organized farm bureau. The defendants are the county of Thurston, its three commissioners, and one resident taxpayer. Prior to September 1, 1938, a proper petition was filed with the county clerk of defendant county, asking for the submission to the voters of the question whether there should be county funds appropriated for the support of agricultural extension work in the defendant county beginning January 1, 1939. Pursuant to law, the county clerk placed upon the ballots for the general election of November, 1938, the following question: There were 1,119 ballots cast against, and 1,465 cast for the proposition, a total of 2,584. The highest number of votes cast for any office or proposition was 4,003. The plaintiff, contending that a majority of all the votes cast on the proposition being favorable thereto, filed its estimate and asked the county board of defendant county to set aside in the annual budget the amount authorized to be appropriated for agricultural work. The defendant commissioners refused, contending that before the appropriation could be made the proposition must be carried by a majority of all votes cast at the election, and that the proposition failed to receive the necessary favorable votes.
Plaintiff brought this action for a declaratory judgment, to determine its rights, and status, and to secure a construction of the statute on the one proposition of law.
The trial court found that " the results of the election held on November 8, 1938, do not entitle plaintiff to any appropriation of funds from the county of Thurston for the year 1939." Plaintiff appeals.
The record presents the single question of law: Does the statute require the proposition to receive a majority of all votes cast at the election or a majority of all votes cast on the proposition, even though that majority be a minority of all votes cast?
The provision of the act to be construed is set out hereafter in this opinion. The rules of construction require this court to discover, if possible, from the language of the act, the legislative intent and give effect thereto. Hansen v. Dakota County, 135 Neb. 582, 283 N.W. 217.The wisdom of the act or the merits of the present proposal cannot be considered in determining the question here presented.
Chicago & N.W. R. Co. v. Bauman, 132 Neb. 67, 271 N.W. 256, 257.
Mills v. Mills, 130 Neb. 881, 266 N.W. 759.
" In order to ascertain the intention of the Legislature in the amendment of a statute, the course of legislation on the subject and existing conditions created under the former statutory provisions may be considered." Union P. R. Co. v. Heuer, 97 Neb. 436, 150 N.W. 259.
This legislation began with the enactment of House Roll 524 in 1913 (Laws 1913, ch. 227; Rev.St.1913, §§ 70 to 72, inc.), providing for the employment of county farm demonstrators to aid in the development of agricultural methods. That act provided that upon a " petition, signed by at least ten per cent of the farm landowners * * * the county board may set aside from the county general fund a sum of money to employ" a county farm demonstrator. The act contained no provision for an election, and provided no way for any one to protest. The petition and the decision of the county board controlled. No limit was placed upon the amount of money that could be appropriated.
The legislature in 1919 repealed the foregoing act (Laws 1919, ch. 203; Comp.St.1922, §§ 69 to 73, inc.), and enacted a new act providing: " Whenever in any county not less than three hundred bona fide residents of the county who are engaged in farming, or a smaller number, when such smaller number is not less than one-half of the bona fide farmers in any county, shall have organized themselves into a Farm Bureau, shall petition the county board to appropriate" money for the promotion of agriculture and the employment of a county agricultural agent, " the county board shall set aside annually" sums of money, as provided in the act. Under the conditions of the act, the county board were required to issue warrants to pay claims approved by the farm bureau. The amount that could be appropriated should not exceed an amount equal to a one-mill levy on the assessed valuation of the property of the county, and in no instance more than $5,000.
The legislature in 1923 repealed the above act (Laws 1923, ch. 1) and enacted Senate File No. 9, providing that the county board shall set aside money for the purpose of improving agriculture and the employment of an agricultural agent upon the petition of the required number of persons. The act required the petitions to be filed not later than September 1, 1924, and every second year thereafter. The petitioners had to be persons " actually and actively engaged in farming." The number of signers required increased from 100 in counties having a population of 3,000 or less, to 600 in counties having a population of more than 17,000. The act further provided that, if within twenty days after the filing of the petition, there was a remonstrance filed against the allowance of the farm bureau budget, signed by residents actually and actively engaged in farming, numbering one-eighth more than signed the petition, the county board should submit the question to a vote of the people of the county at the next general election. The manner of submission was set out, and section 7 provided: The total amount that could be appropriated was reduced to $3,500. In this act, for the first time, provision is made for remonstrances, for an election, and for a decision by the people of the county.
By House Roll No. 36 (Laws 1925, ch. 2) and by Senate File No. 283 (Laws 1927, ch. 55) amendments were made to a part of the act not important to be noted here. The act as so amended became sections 2-1101 to 2-1109, inc., Comp.St.1929.
In 1933, by Senate File No. 309 (Laws 1933, ch, 3), the last named sections were repealed, and a new act passed which is now sections 2-1110 to 2-1117, inc., Comp.St.Supp.1937. This last act enlarged the scope of the previous acts, but all the acts had the same general purpose. By this act " a farm operator who is a legal voter" could be a petitioner. Comp.St.Supp.1937, § 2-1112. The provisions of this act with reference to the petitions, the election, etc., which is to be construed, are as follows:
" If on or before September 1 of any even numbered year, a petition is filed with the County Clerk containing the names of twenty per cent (20%) or more of the ‘ farm operators' of any county or counties as determined by the last available Federal Census comprising a district under this act, asking the submission to the voters of the question of whether there shall be county funds appropriated for the continuance or support of County Agricultural Extension Work in said county or district beginning on January 1st after the filing of said petition, it shall be the duty of the clerk of said county to have placed upon the ballot at the election following the filing of said petition the question, ‘ Shall an appropriation be made...
To continue reading
Request your trial