Windham v. State

• Decision Date: 05 February 1918
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 548
• Citation: 77 So. 963,16 Ala.App. 383
• Parties: WINDHAM v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

77 So. 963

16 Ala.App. 383

WINDHAM v. STATE.

4 Div. 548

Court of Appeals of Alabama

February 5, 1918

Rehearing Denied Feb. 26, 1918

Appeal from Circuit Court, Coffee County; A.B. Foster, Judge.

W.P Windham was convicted of violating a vehicle license tax law and he appeals. Affirmed.

M.S. Carmichael, of Montgomery, M.A. Owen, of Elba, and J.A. Carnley, of Enterprise, for appellant.

F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., and Emmett S. Thigpen, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.

BRICKEN J.

The defendant was convicted for the violation of one of the requirements of a vehicle license tax law adopted and promulgated by the court of county commissioners of Coffee county, under the authority of an act of the Legislature approved September 22, 1915 (General Acts 1915, pp. 573-577), known as the Goode Law, section 13 of which confers the powers to enact such a law, unless that section is invalid, upon some one or all of the grounds urged against it by defendant.

It was insisted in the court below, and the same contention is made in this court, that the Legislature was without the power to delegate to the courts of county commissioners the power to legislate in the matter of establishing, constructing, using, working, and maintaining the public roads, bridges and ferries of the several counties of the state. That there is no merit in this contention is too well established by the repeated decisions of this court and of the Supreme Court to require more than a citation of the cases containing the decisions. State v. McCarty, 5 Ala.App. 212, 59 So. 543; Whaley v. State, 168 Ala. 152, 52 So. 941, 30 L.R.A. (N.S.) 499; Hicks v. State, 75 So. 636; Floyd v. State, 74 So. 752; State v. Strawbridge, 76 So. 479.

It is also insisted that the license tax in question is void because it is a property tax, and, not having been levied according to the valuation of the property, is invalid. There is no merit in this insistence. A license tax is not a property tax. The burden is not laid upon the rem. The license is exacted for the privilege of using the vehicle upon the public highways, and thereby requiring the owner of the vehicle to contribute his just share of the expense of upkeep, repair, and maintenance necessarily attendant upon the use of the highway. Such a tax is in no sense an ad valorem or property tax, and the distinction is clearly recognized and applied in the following among other reported cases: Browne v. Mobile, 122 Ala. 159, 25 So. 223; Kennamer v. State, 150 Ala. 74, 43 So. 482; Hudgens v. State, 72 So. 605; State v. Strawbridge, 76 So. 479.

The license tax in question is levied by the ordinance or resolution of the court of county commissioners, and while the ordinance imposes certain duties on the tax collector and tax assessor, and in terms provides "that the tax assessor and tax collector of the county are hereby charged with the duty of carrying into force and effect the provisions of this enactment, and all taxes, licenses, moneys, fees, and forfeitures collected under this enactment shall belong to the road and bridge fund of this county, and the tax assessor shall assess each and every person subject to the vehicle license tax as the other taxes are required by law to be assessed, but he shall make separate assessments, so as not to confuse the assessment under this act with the general assessments for the state and county purposes, and it is the duty of every person liable to the payment of a license tax under this act to return his vehicle for assessment, and, failing to do so, such person is guilty of a misdemeanor," etc., the effect of these provisions, when construed in connection with the entire ordinance, is merely to impose on the collector and assessor the duty of making a record of the license taxes that are due from different persons as they are reported under the provisions of this ordinance, and of collecting the same and keeping a separate account thereof.

The next insistence of the defendant is that section 13 of the act of 1915, supra, conferring upon courts of county commissioners, boards of revenue, or other like governing bodies of the several counties of the state the power to impose upon the owners of vehicles used upon the public roads of the county such license taxes as may be deemed advisable, is void because it is not fairly indicated in the caption or title of the act. If that contention can be sustained, then it logically follows that the regulations adopted by the court of county commissioners of Coffee county, by which that court undertook to put in force its vehicle license law, is void, and the conviction of defendant for a violation of one of its requirements cannot be supported. The Constitution of 1901 (section 45) requires that every law enacted by the Legislature, save those enumerated in that section, must be single, that is, that it shall contain but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title. This provision must receive a reasonable construction, so as to give it effect. Bates v. State, 118 Ala. 102, 24 So. 448; State v. Rogers, 107 Ala. 444, 19 So. 909, 32 L.R.A. 520. If the subject is expressed in general terms, everything necessary to make a complete enactment, or which results as a complement of general expression, is included. The title may be very general; and it is not required that every clause or section of the statute be indicated or specified, but it is sufficient if each section or clause is referable to or cognate with the subject expressed in the title, the provision is satisfied. State v. Sayre, 118 Ala. 1, Glasscock v. State,

159 Ala. 90, 48 So 700; Ex parte Pollard, 40 Ala. 77. From the Glasscock Case, supra, the...