Wilson v. Forest, (No. 3494.)

• Decision Date: 13 September 1923
• Docket Number: (No. 3494.)
• Citation: 119 S.E. 394,156 Ga. 403
• Parties: WILSON et al. v. SUPREME FOREST, WOODMEN CIRCLE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

156 Ga. 403

119 S.E. 394

WILSON et al.

v.SUPREME FOREST, WOODMEN CIRCLE.

(No. 3494.)

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Sept. 13, 1923.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Gilbert, J., dissenting.

Error from City Court of Americus; W. M. Harper, Judge.

Garnishment by Ella Wilson and others, administrators, against the Supreme Forest, Woodmen Circle. Judgment for the garnishee, and the administrators bring error. Affirmed.

R. L. Maynard, of Americus, for plaintiffs in error.

Ellis, Webb & Ellis, of Americus, for defendant in error.

RUSSELL, C. J. We shall consider the ruling of the court upon the fourth and ninth ground of the demurrer, in which the question of the constitutionality of section 17 of the act of 1914 (Acts 1914, pp. 99-110) is involved. This for the reason that if the act is unconstitutional, the validity of the service as set forth in the record (and asserted to be invalid) would be next considered; and if on the other hand the act is constitutional, the ruling of the lower court upon the demurrer is necessarily right for the reason that the foregoing act prescribes that "Legal process shall not be served upon any such society except in the manner provided herein."

1. The contention that section 17 of this act is unconstitutional is based upon three propositions: First, that the caption does not include the subject-matter involved in the seventeenth section of the act, and is therefore violative of article 3, § 7, par. 8, of the Constitution. The caption is as follows:

"An act for the regulation and control of all fraternal benefit societies; to prescribe their admission into this state; the amount of license fee for each society; how they may be excluded from the state; and for other purposes."

Plainly stated, the first position is that the matter of service of judicial process is not included in the meaning of the words "regulation and control." It seems to me that an act, the purposes of which are thus stated, would only include acts of the society or fraternity in carrying on its own business— a regulation and control of the acts of the society or insurer alone, and would not include regulation of any acts of an adverse party in a proceeding against it. The method of service of process might and would be a species of regulation, but would it be a regulation of the business of the society? The business of the society is to write insurance, and to pay the policy upon the compliance upon the part of those it insures with the contract of insurance. This view would seem to find support in the ruling in Hawkins v. State, 146 Ga. 134, 90 S. E. 968, in which Mr. Justice Hill, delivering the opinion of the court, said that:

"Section 3 of the act of 1913 (Acts 1913, p. 98), which purports to regulate and control certain insurance companies, is unconstitutional as being in violation of article 3, § 7, par. 8, of the constitution of this state, which declares that no law shall pass which refers to more than one subject-matter, or contains matter different from what is expressed in the title thereof. The title to the act of 1913 (Acts 1913, p. 98) is as follows: 'An act to better regulate and control the organization and operation of corporations (foreign and domestic) doing an industrial, health, life, or accident insurance business in the state of Georgia, and to provide penalties, and for other purposes.' Section 3 of the act provides: 'That no personshall knowingly or wilfully make or aid in making of any false or fraudulent statement or representation of any material fact or thing in any, written statement or certificate for the purpose of procuring or attempting to procure the payment of any false or fraudulent claim against any such insurance company or fraternal or benefit association, and no person shall make any false or fraudulent statement * * * in any application for insurance, or as to the death or disability of the policy or certificate holder, for the purpose of fraudulently obtaining any money or benefit from any such insurance company or fraternal or benefit association licensed to do business in this state.'"

As to this Justice Hill, speaking for the court, says:

"Section 3 of the act does not refer in terms, or otherwise, to the acts of insurance companies, their officers or agents but expressly declares 'That no person shall knowingly or wilfully make or aid in making of any false or fraudulent statement, ' etc., for the purpose of procuring or attempting to procure the payment of fraudulent claims against insurance companies. This language is broad enough to include all outside persons, and cannot have reference to the * * * class of corporations designated in the act. The act deals with the regulation, control, and operation of corporations, and also undertakes to regulate, control, and punish outside persons for fraudulent acts injurious to such companies. It requires no demonstration to show that section 3 of the act under review contains matter different from what is expressed in the title of the act. From a careful reading of the title and that section of the act, it is apparent that section 3 has reference to outsiders who make or aid in making fraudulent claims against insurance companies in the manner pointed out, while the title only covers the subject of regulation and control of the organization and operations of certain corporations. The one cannot be included in the other, and each refers to separate subject-matters. We think, therefore, that section 3 of the act is repugnant to the latter clause of paragraph 8 of section 7 of article 3 of the Constitution of this state, which provides that no law shall pass which refers to more than one subject-matter, or contains matter different from what is expressed in the title thereof."

It was held in Corenblum v. State, 153 Ga. 596, 113 S. E. 159, that:

"That part of section 34 of article 20 of the act approved August 16, 1919 (Georgia Laws 1919, p. 135), entitled an act to regulate banking, etc., which declares that 'Any person who, with intent to defraud, shall make, or draw, or utter, or deliver any check, draft, or order for the payment of money upon any bank, or other depository, knowing at the time of such making, drawing, uttering, or delivery that the maker or drawer has not sufficient funds in or credit with such bank, or other depository, for the payment of such check, draft, or order in full upon its presentation, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, ' is unconstitutional, because it violates the provision of the Constitution of Georgia contained in article 3, § 7, par. 8, of the Constitution (Civil Code, § 6437), in that it contains matter different from what is expressed in the title of the act."

In this case Beck, P. J., speaking for the court, said:

"And it seems to us that the matter contained in section 34 of article 20, which we have quoted above, is not germane to the purpose of the act as indicated by the caption. A law to regulate banking, to create the department of banking, to provide for the incorporation of banks, and the renewal and surrender of charters, to provide penalties for...