Walker v. Dunham

• Decision Date: 13 December 1861
• Citation: 17 Ind. 483
• Parties: Walker v. Dunham, Secretary of State
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

17 Ind. 483

Walker v. Dunham, Secretary of State

Supreme Court of Indiana

December 13, 1861

APPEAL from the Marion Circuit Court.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

S Major, J. E. McDonald and A. L. Roache, for the appellant.

C. L Dunham, for the appellee.

OPINION

Worden J.

In January, 1859, Walker was duly elected State printer, gave bond, and entered upon the duties pertaining to the office.

Afterward in March, 1859, the Legislature passed an act entitled "An act fixing the time and mode of electing State printer, defining his duties, fixing compensation, and repealing all laws coming in conflict with this act." Acts 1859, p. 143. By this act, the prices to be paid the public printer for printing are reduced below those established by the law in force at the time Walker was elected and gave bond.

The question presented by this record is, whether Walker is entitled to be paid for printing done after the act of March, 1859, took effect, according to the law in force at the time of his election, or whether the price is to be regulated by the act of 1859. The Court below held that the act of 1859 governs in this respect.

There can be no mistake as to the intention of the Legislature in this respect. The second section of the act in question provides, that "The prices to be paid the public printer, from and after the taking effect of this act, are hereby established as follows," &c. An emergency was declared, and the act took effect from its passage. It is clear, from the terms of the act, that the Legislature intended to fix the prices to be paid the printer then in office, for work done thereafter, as well as the prices to be paid any future public printer. Looking to the language of the act, it can not be held prospective merely, in that sense that would apply it to a future, and not to the then present, public printer. It is prospective, undoubtedly, in reference to the printing. It fixes the prices to be paid for printing thereafter to be done, by whomsoever the work may be performed. Two points, however, are made that require careful consideration.

First. That the title of the act is not sufficient to admit legislation under it, fixing the prices to be paid the public printer then in office.

Second. That the Legislature could not, as to the appellant, diminish the prices as established by law at the time he took the office, and gave bond; as that would be a violation of the contract entered into between him and the State.

We have seen that the title is, "An act fixing the time and mode of electing State printer, defining his duties, fixing compensation, and repealing all laws coming in conflict with this act."

It is claimed that this title is not sufficient to authorize legislation in reference to the then incumbent of the office because its terms apply only to the person to...