Case ID: ala_117/html/0569-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      COLEMAN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pierce v. Court of County Commissioners of Elmore County.
    
      Application for Mandamus.
    
    1. Fine and forfeiture fund-, constitutionality of statute regulating same. — The act approved January 30,1897, (Acts of 1896-97, p. 471), providing for the regulation of the fine and forfeiture fund of Elmore county .and for the payment of claims against such fund by appropriation thereto from the general fund, is unconstitutional and void as violative of Article IV, section 2 of the Constitution, providing that each law shall contain but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title; since the fine and forfeiture fund and the claims against it are wholly distinct from the general fund of the county.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Elmore.
    Tried before the Hon. N. D. Denson.
    J. J. Pierce being the owner and holder of valid registered claims against the fine and forfeiture fund of Elmore county, applied to the treasurer of said county for payment. This application was made, in all respects, in accordance with the provisions of the act of the General Assembly of Alabama, approved January 30, 1897— Acts, 1896-97, p. 471. -The treasurer of the county refused payment upon the ground that the county commissioners had not made the appropriation provided for by said act, and upon 'the further ground that he had no funds in his hands subject to- the payment of the claims against the fine and forfeiture fund. Thereupon Pierce applied to the court of county commissioners to make the appropriation from the general fund of the county to the fine and forfeiture fund, in accordance with the act of the General Assembly, approved January 30, 1897. (Acts, 1896-97, p. 471). The court of county commissioners refused to make said appropriation, upon the ground that said act was unconstitutional and void. Thereupon Pierce filed his petition before the circuit court judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, praying that a writ of mandamus be awarded to compel the commissioners court.of said county to make the appropriation provided for by* said act. This petition was demurred to, upon the ground that the act was unconstitutional, the principal ground of demurrer being that it violated section 2 of Article IV of the constitution, which declares that each law shall contain but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title. This demurrer was sustained, and the petitioner declining to plead further, the application was dismissed. From this judgment the petitioner appeals, and assigns as error the sustaining of the demurrer to .the petition.
    Frank W. Lull, Robert S. Teague and Massey Wilson, for appellant.
    The legislature did not appropriate any money out of either the county or state treasury, but authorized and required the court of county commissioners to appropriate funds out of one fund of the county and into another and different fund. The power of the legislative branch of the government to control the fine and forfeiture funds of the various counties has been upheld often by the court. — Herr v. Seymour, 76 Ala. 270: Sessions v. Boykin, 78 Ala. 328; Brown $). Parris, 93 Ala. 814; Harold v. Herrington, 95 Ala. 395.
    J. M. Fitrpatrick, contra,
    
    cited Brown v. Parris, 93 Ala. 314; Harold v. Herrington, 95 Ala. 395; Ballentyne v. Wiclcersham, 75 Ala. 533,
   COLEMAN, J.

In the case of Sanders v. The Court of County Commissioners, ante, p. 543, we held that the act of February 28th, 1895, (Acts of 1894-95, p. 731), was unconstitutional and void as contravening section 2, Art. IV of the constitution! It follows as an obvious consequence from that decision, that the act of 1896-97, p. 471, under which the present proceedings were instituted, is also unconstitutional and void, as contravening that part of the same section of the constitution, which declares that “each law shall contain but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its. title.” As was held in the opinion in that case, under existing statutes the fine and forfeiture fund and claims against it are subjects wholly separate and distinct from the general fund of a county, and that “no reasonable construction of the title of an act to regulate the. fine and forfeiture fund would admit of the conclusion, .that such a title contemplated an appropriation of the general funds of a county,” etc. Upon the authority of that case, the present case must be affirmed.

Affirmed.