Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Ailshie, Budge, Sullivan
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- appeal from district court dismissal via demurrer
Related Laws
Outcome
Appeal from district court dismissal of petition for writ of mandate to compel taxation assessment of motor vehicles under the highway commission act; appellate court affirmed dismissal, finding the statute constitutional and the amendment in compliance with constitutional requirements.
Excerpt
<p>APPEAL from tbe District Court of the Third Judicial District for Ada County. Hon. Carl A. Davis, Judge.</p> <p>Petition for writ of mandate to compel the board of county commissioners and county assessor of Ada county to assess all motor vehicles that escaped taxation for the year 1913, under the highway commission act. Demurrer to petition sustained by lower court.</p> <p>This purported amendment relating to property exempt from taxation does not comply with the constitution, see. 18, art. 3.</p> <p>The legislature, by the title of the highway commission act, declared that they intended to amend see. 1644, Kev. Codes.</p> <p>“The declared purpose of a statute must be accepted as true, .unless sueh purpose be incompatible with its meaning and effect.” (S. S. White Dental Mfg. Co. v. Commonwealth, 212 Mass. 35, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 805, 98 N. E. 1056; Lewis’ Sutherland Stat. Const., 2d ed., sees. 230, 231; Fletcher v. Prather, 102 Cal. 413, 36 Pac. 658; People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 481; Copland v. Pirie, 26 Wash. 481, 90 Am. St. 769, 67 Pac. 227.)</p> <p>“If all parts of the act have a natural connection and reasonably relate, directly or indirectly, to one general, legitimate subject of legislation, the act is not open to the objection of plurality of subjects.” (State v. Doherty, 3 Ida. 384, 29 Pac. 855; State v. Dolan, 13 Ida. 693, 92 Pae. 995, 14 L. R. A., N. S., 1259; Pioneer Irr. Dist. v. Bradley, 8 Ida. 310, 101 Am. St. 201, 68 Pac. 295; State v. Jones, 9 Ida. 693, 75 Pac. 819; Turner v. Coffin, 9 Ida. 338, 74 Pac. 962; Butler v. Lewiston, 11 Ida. 393, 83 Pac. 234; Kessler v. Fritchman, 21 Ida. 30, 119 Pac. 692; Shoshone Highway Dist. v. Anderson, 22 Ida. 109, 125 Pac. 219; In re Magues’ Estate, 32 Colo. 527, 77 Pac. 853.)</p> <p>An act is not unconstitutional if the title is broader than the act. (Divet v. Richland Co., 8 N, D. 65, 76 N. W. 993.) Similar titles in the f ollowing cases w§rg hsld to be sufficient: State v. Klectzen, 8 N. I), £36, 78 N. W. 984; M
Similar Rulings
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.