Title: State v. Spink Hutterian Brethren

State: south-dakota

Issuer: South Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

90 N.W.2d 365 (1958) STATE of South Dakota ex rel. W. G. DUNKER, State's Attorney of Spink County, South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SPINK HUTTERIAN BRETHREN, a corporation, Defendant and Respondent. No. 9627. Supreme Court of South Dakota. May 24, 1958. Rehearing Denied June 24, 1958. *367 Phil Saunders, Atty. Gen., E. D. Barron, Asst. Atty. Gen., W. G. Dunker, State's Atty., Spink County, Redfield, for plaintiff-appellant. Charles Lacey, Sioux Falls, Max Royhl, Huron, for defendant-respondent. KNIGHT, Circuit Judge. The state has appealed from a judgment of dismissal entered by the Circuit Court of Spink County decreeing that Chapter 15 of the Session Laws of 1955, which will be hereinafter referred to as "the act", is unconstitutional and void for uncertainty. The chapter is as follows: "Repealing Communal Corporation Laws The ultimate facts are not in dispute. On April 9, 1945, articles of incorporation were filed and a charter granted to defendant as a communal corporation pursuant to SDC Chapter 11.12. Prior to the effective date of the act, defendant acquired 5,680 acres of land in Spink County, upon which its 133 members resided as a communal colony, depending exclusively upon farming and stock raising for the sustenance of its members. Subsequent to the effective date of the act, defendant purchased an additional 80 acres of land. The State's Attorney of Spink County, deeming this purchase to be an expansion of an activity of defendant and in violation of the provisions of the italicized portion of Section 2, of the act, brought this action pursuant to SDC 37.05, in the name of the state for the purpose of vacating the charter of the defendant and annulling its existence as a corporation. Defendant, by answer, challenged the constitutionality of the act on several grounds, and as respondent, now The judgment of the trial court, omitting formal parts and recitals, is as follows: The trial court, in a carefully prepared memorandum decision, after discussing but not passing upon the extent of the reserved legislative power hereinafter discussed, held the act invulnerable, except upon the ground of uncertainty, upon which the judgment is based. To declare statutes unconstitutional is a delicate power of the courts to be exercised with great caution. The fact that in declaring a statute unconstitutional the court annuls the act of a co-ordinate department of government justifies the attitude of the courts in declining, whenever possible, to pass upon constitutional questions. State ex rel. Wilkinson v. Murphy, 237 Ala. 332, 186 So. 487, 121 A.L.R. 283; In re Clark's Estate, 105 Mont. 401, 74 P.2d 401, 114 A.L.R. 496; United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1, 67 S. Ct. 1538, 91 L. Ed. 1877; In re Snyder's Estate, 74 S.D. 14, 48 N.W.2d 238. The judgment appealed from strikes down the act in its entirety and we find that a proper disposition necessitates a determination of the issue of constitutionality which is presented by appropriate assignments of error. Every presumption is in favor of the validity and propriety of the enactment, which should not be held unconstitutional unless its infringement of constitutional restrictions is so plain and culpable as to admit of no reasonable doubt. State ex rel. Botkin v. Welsh, 61 S.D. 593, 251 N.W. 189; Mundell v. Graph, 62 S.D. 631, 256 N.W. 121; Warren v. Brown, 57 S.D. 528, 234 N.W. 38; State v. Black Hills Transportation Co., 71 S.D. 28, 20 N.W.2d 683; Hodges v. Snyder, 45 S.D. 149, 186 N.W. 867, 25 A.L.R. 1128. A clear understanding necessitates a brief statement of events preceding the adoption of the act, as these events are disclosed by the record in this case, the opinion of this court filed in 1922, in State ex rel. Chamberlain v. Hutterische Bruder Gemeinde, 46 S.D. 189, 191 N.W. 635, and earlier legislative enactments Members of the Hutterische society came from south Russia to Bon Homme County in 1874, lived a communal life apparently in accordance with their religious beliefs, and engaged in farming and stock raising. In 1905, 222 members of this society filed articles of incorporation and were granted a charter as a religious corporation, and thereafter continued the activities and mode of life practiced prior to such incorporation. During or shortly after World War I, upon the request of the State Council of Defense, the action above mentioned was brought in the Circuit Court of Beadle County to annul said charter. The trial court rendered a judgment adverse to the defendant corporation but denied the annulment sought, which judgment was modified by this court to order such annulment, with permission to such corporation to convey all its property. The opinion contains a rather comprehensive statement of the beliefs, activities, living habits, and customs of the members of the corporation, and a discussion of the prerogatives of religious corporations and legislative powers relating thereto. At the time of the trial in that case there were 856 members of the corporation, which then owned real and personal property of the estimated value of $1,112,000. The court held that the defendant was not a religious corporation but one engaged almost entirely in secular pursuits. We quote from the opinion: Communal corporations were first provided in this state by Chapter 72 of the Session Laws of 1935, which, without substantial change, was re-enacted as SDC Chapter 11.12. Prior to the amendment thereof hereinafter referred to, whereby the herein italicized portions were eliminated, the said chapter was, in part, as follows: Subsection (3) of Section 11.1206, prior to amendment, authorized the adoption of by-laws, of the nature provided for in the italicized portion of Section 11.1204, as above set forth. Chapter 18, of the Session Laws of 1953, amends the sections above quoted by deleting therefrom, and thus repealing, the italicized portions thereof, and repealing said subsection (3) of Section 11.1206. The power of the corporation to require its members to live and practice the communal life set forth in its articles of incorporation and to provide for penalties for misconduct, etc., of its members, was withdrawn and any by-laws to this effect were rendered invalid by Chapter 18 of the Session Laws of 1953, which, by the omission of the italicized portions of said sections SDC 11.1203 and 11.1204 repealed such portions. National Bank of Wheaton v. Elkins, 37 S.D. 479, 159 N.W. 60; 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 384, p. 901. The articles of incorporation so filed as aforesaid and which apparently have not been amended since the granting of the charter are voluminous, consisting of twenty-one numbered paragraphs, and set forth as the purposes of the incorporation many matters not contemplated nor authorized by Chapter 11.12. These purposes are set forth in paragraph 2 of the articles of incorporation with subsections (a) to (i) inclusive, from which we quote the following subsections: Subparagraphs (e) to (i) relate to mercantile, mining, manufacturing, applying for and securing patents, etc., activities in which defendant has never been engaged. The by-laws of the defendant are not before us, but the following quoted paragraphs from the articles of incorporation, together with the portions of Section 2 thereof hereinbefore set forth, indicate the general nature of the corporation and the purported rights and obligations of its members: Paragraph 7 of the articles of incorporation provides generally that the corporation shall have power to fix and specify in its by-laws the qualifications of members and that "All shall be members who are born in or adhere to the faith of the Hutterian Brethren as known throughout the world." It thus appears that it is within the purported power of the corporation to take and own any and all property which any member may obtain in any manner, and by a vote of the majority to expel any member for noncompliance with the rules as to adherence to its teachings and attendance upon religious services, and that upon such expulsion, such person shall forfeit and be deprived of any and all property and all interest in the corporation and its property. That voluntary enlistment by a member in the military service of the United States, or acquiescence in the draft therefor, might result in such expulsion and forfeiture. The charter granted defendant consists of its articles of incorporation and the laws of this state. In re Hanson's Estate, 38 S.D. 1, 159 N.W. 399, 400. The charter was applied for and granted under the provisions of SDC Chapter 11.12. In all respects in which there is a conflict between the powers conferred by the statute and those set forth in the articles of incorporation or the by-laws of the corporation adopted pursuant to such articles of incorporation, the law is supreme. 13 Am.Jur., Corporations, p. 187 et seq.; 18 C.J.S. Corporations § 25, p. 406 et seq. The charter of defendant was not vitiated by the inclusion in its articles of incorporation of powers not authorized by the law, and those matters included therein not so authorized are considered as surplusage and without any force or effect. 18 C.J.S. Corporations § 55, p. 436; 13 Am.Jur., Corporations, p. 187; Colcord v. Granzow, 137 Okl. 194, 278 P. 654, 64 A.L.R. 699. The charter of defendant was granted to and accepted by it subject to the reserved constitutional and statutory power of the legislature to alter, revise, or annul the same at any time. The record discloses that seventeen communal corporations, similar to, if not identical *373 with, the defendant have incorporated and now exist under the provisions of said SDC Chapter 11.12, and are engaged exclusively in agricultural pursuits. There is nothing in the record to indicate the number of other communal corporations, if any, which have been granted charters pursuant to this law. This chapter provides for communal, not religious, corporations and is equally applicable to atheistic communistic corporations and to Christian communals. Corporations chartered under this chapter, regardless of the purposes and powers stated in their articles of incorporation, and regardless of the beliefs of its members, as stated therein, are secular corporations. State ex rel. Chamberlain v. Hutterische Bruder Gemeinde, supra. Benevolent, religious and educational corporations are provided for in SDC Chapter 11.13 to 11.18, both inclusive. We may assume that the matters hereinbefore set forth, and other facts not known to the members of this Court, were fully considered by the Legislature in passing the act. It is not the function of the Court to inquire into the wisdom, policy, necessity, or expediency of legislation. As was stated in Elfring v. Paterson, 66 S.D. 458, 462, 285 N.W. 443, 445, "It is for the Legislature to choose its subjects, and its own mode of expression. It is for the court to interpret the language employed so as to carry into effect the legislative purpose, so far as it may not be unquestionably at variance with the Constitution." "The Legislature, within well-known and well-defined limitations, is the sole judge as to when and how the police power is to be exercised." State v. Central Lumber Co., 24 S.D. 136, 137, 123 N.W. 504, 42 L.R.A., N.S., 804; 13 Am.Jur., Corporations, p. 236. It was the prerogative of the legislature to consider and decide whether "in their opinion it (any corporation) may be injurious to the citizens of the state," and upon such decision to "alter, revise, or annul" its charter. The decision reached is indicated by the legislative action taken. It is not the prerogative of the Court to inquire into or ascertain what facts and considerations resulted in such decision. In City of Madison v. Chicago, M. & St. P. & P. Ry. Co., 2 Wis.2d 467, 87 N.W.2d 251, 255, the rule is stated thus: Perhaps the freedom of the individual members of such corporations who are "citizens of the state" may have been considered, although the wishes of such individual members might be difficult to ascertain. To quote Channing, "The obstacles to inquiry are as real, and may be as powerful, as in the neighborhood of the Inquisition. The multitude dare not think, and the thinking dare not speak." Under the purported powers as set forth in the articles of incorporation, any member may be expelled by a majority vote without being permitted to take with him so much as a small coin bearing the motto of his country, "In God We Trust." Any member bringing suit to secure a right or redress a wrong or to secure a *374 declaratory judgment as to the validity and effect of the articles of incorporation, or his right to receive a legacy, would do so at the risk of such expulsion. The intention of the legislature is clearly apparent from the language and "mode of expression" employed in this enactment. Its foremost purpose was to repeal SDC Chapter 11.12. It was also its purpose to save existing corporations formed thereunder. No question is or could well be raised as to the effect or validity of the act but for the exception contained in Section 2; viz., "except that it shall be a bar to the expansion of any activity or power * * * authorized prior to and in effect at the effective date of this act." Neither upon the trial nor upon this appeal has the severability of the act been urged, but it is our duty, under well established rules, to sustain the law in its entirety, if possible, and otherwise to sustain the valid portion thereof. State v. Morgan, 2 S.D. 32, 48 N.W. 314; Morrow v. Wipf, 22 S.D. 146, 115 N.W. 1121; Pugh v. Pugh, 25 S.D. 7, 124 N.W. 959, 32 L.R.A.,N.S., 954; State ex rel. Mills v. Wilder, 73 S.D. 330, 42 N.W.2d 891; 11 Am.Jur. 834; 50 Am.Jur. 491; 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 92, p. 149. In Morrow v. Wipf, supra, [22 S.D. 146, 115 N.W. 1124], the following statement of the rule is set forth: The rejection of all of Section 2 of the act because of the alleged uncertainty of the questioned limiting clause would leave an act complete in itself repealing SDC Chapter 11.12. It was the very apparent intention of the legislature, however, to include a saving clause. We are of the opinion that if invalidity of the limitation contained in the saving clause had been foreseen, the legislature would have enacted such saving clause without such limitation and would now wish the saving clause sustained with the limiting clause exscinded. If the limiting clause only be rejected, there would remain an act complete in itself, repealing SDC Chapter 11.12, while saving existing corporations created thereunder. Such a severance however would defeat a further purpose of the legislature to prevent the expansion of the activities and powers of such corporations, which purpose should not be thwarted unless necessary. Appellant suggests that it is common knowledge that the general public is much concerned with the continued unrestricted purchase of land by communals and that it was this "evil" the legislature intended to remedy. We find nothing in the record indicating that legislative intent was thus limited. In 1953, the legislature removed certain powers of communal corporations authorized by SDC Chapter 11.12, as hereinbefore discussed, and by the present act clearly intended to permit no expansion of the powers "in effect" on July 1, 1955, the effective date of the act. Part of the powers authorized by Chapter 11.12 were not "in effect" at the time of the adoption of the act, because of the enactment of Chapter 18, Laws of 1953. Had it been the only purpose of the legislature to prevent the acquisition of more land, we believe it would have spelled out this purpose in simple language. The *375 general language employed, however, clearly indicates a much broader purpose which is presumed to be valid and capable of being effectuated. In support of its contention that the act is void for uncertainty, respondent cites the following authorities, which are hereinafter discussed: 12 Am.Jur., Const.Law, § 585; 50 Am.Jur., Statutes, § 472; Amsel v. Brooks, 141 Conn. 288, 106 A.2d 152, 45 A.L.R.2d 1234; Boyce Motor Lines, Inc., v. U. S., 342 U.S. 337, 72 S. Ct. 329, 96 L. Ed. 367; In re Di Torio, D.C., 8 F.2d 279; McDougall v. Lueder, 389 Ill. 141, 58 N.E.2d 899, 156 A.L.R. 1059; State ex rel. Cooperative Wool Growers v. Bushfield, 69 S.D. 172, 8 N.W.2d 1; State v. Dove, 75 S.D. 460, 67 N.W.2d 917; State v. Lanesboro Produce & Hatchery Co., 221 Minn. 246, 21 N.W.2d 792, 163 A.L.R. 1108; State ex rel. Olson v. Tarr, 61 S.D. 218, 248 N.W. 200; Ulrich v. Lincoln Realty Co., 180 Or. 380, 168 P.2d 582, 175 P.2d 149; United States v. Cardiff, 344 U.S. 174, 73 S. Ct. 189, 97 L. Ed. 200. An analysis of these text statements and the results reached in these cases illustrates the ease with which abstract statements relating to statutory construction may be formulated and reiterated and how difficult is their application. Often the abstraction is found inapplicable to the confronting problem. As was stated by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in United States v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corporation, 344 U.S. 218, 73 S. Ct. 227, 229, 97 L. Ed. 260, "Generalities about statutory construction help us little * * *. They do not solve the special difficulties in construing a particular statute. The variables render every problem of statutory construction unique." A statute relating to civil conduct may be upheld even if considered too indefinite or vague for penal proscription. 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 68, p. 109. The statement in 12 Am.Jur., Const.Law, § 585, is a brief recital of the rule that "A statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law. On the other hand, where the words assailed, taken in connection with the context, are commonly understood, their use does not render a statute invalid. * * * "A great any statutes have been sustained against the contention that they were so uncertain or indefinite that the enforcement thereof did not constitute due process of law." 50 Am.Jur., Statutes, § 472, quoted in the briefs, sets forth a general rule and is followed by § 473, which is as follows: Amsel v. Brooks, supra [141 Conn. 288, 106 A.2d 156], was an action for a declaratory judgment that a penal statute is unconstitutional because not sufficiently explicit. The court said: Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. U. S., supra [342 U.S. 337, 72 S. Ct. 330], was a criminal action in which appellant was indicated for knowingly violating an Interstate Commerce Commission regulation which provides as follows: We quote from the opinion: The judgment affirmed that of the Court of Appeals remanding the cause to the District Court with instructions to reinstate the counts of the indictment based upon the regulation. In a dissenting opinion it is said, "Where the federal crime-making power is delegated to such a body, we are justified in requiring considerable precision in its exercise." In re Di Torio, supra [8 F.2d 279], the District Court rendering the decision had under consideration the validity of the following provision in a naturalization law, "Provided, that it shall not be lawful to make a declaration of intention before the clerk of any court on election day or during the period of thirty days preceding the day of holding any election in the jurisdiction of the court." The court discussed the fact that the word "election" without more, was indefinite and held, "If the proviso is held to cover all elections in the territorial jurisdiction of the court, this court is without power to accept declarations of intention during almost eleven months of the year." The proviso was held void and the application to vacate the order admitting Di Torio to citizenship was denied. In McDougall v. Lueder, supra [389 Ill. 141, 58 N.E.2d 905], the court had under consideration a statute relating to the regulation and licensing of Community Currency Exchanges, a section of which purported to require an application to do business to contain "such other information as the Auditor may require." The court said: The court further said: State ex rel. Cooperative Wool Growers v. Bushfield, supra, was an original proceeding in this court wherein plaintiff sought to compel the Governor to appoint to the State Livestock Sanitary Board some person recommended by the Cooperative Wool Growers Association of South Dakota, and to prohibit an appointee to such Board from qualifying because not so recommended. The statute provided for a recommendation by South Dakota Wool Growers Association. Plaintiff's contention that the legislature intended to refer to plaintiff when enacting this statute was not sustained and the court dismissed the proceeding. This case has no bearing here. State v. Dove, supra, related to a penal statute providing for a death penalty for its violation. A very strict application of the rule of definiteness and clarity was properly required. *378 State v. Lanesboro Produce Co., supra, was decided in 1946, while State v. Northwest Poultry and Egg Co., 203 Minn. 438, 281 N.W. 753, cited by appellant, was decided in 1938. Both cases involved the validity in a penal statute of the phrase "actual cost of transportation." In each case, general rules as to vague statutes are discussed at length; in the earlier case from which appellant quotes the rule that absolute certainty is not required, etc., a divided court found the statute too vague to be enforcible, while in the later case, after an extended discussion of the earlier decision, the court sustained the validity of the enactment and quoted from a dissenting opinion in the earlier case, as follows: State ex rel. Olson v. Tarr, supra, an election held in Gregory County in 1932 resulted in a vote reducing the number of county commissioners from five to three. The law made no provision whatever as to the method of determining which members should continue to serve. The law was held void because too incomplete to be enforcible, and the election was of no effect. Ulrich v. Lincoln Realty Co., supra, and United States v. Cardiff offer no assistance in this case. These cases relied upon by respondent tend to emphasize the duty of the court to sustain legislative enactments, including penal statutes, rather than to strike them down for uncertainty, and this rule is supported by the great weight of authority. A discussion of the great many cases examined would serve no useful purpose. Many are listed under Statutes in The National Reporter System. The rule most often applied is to sustain enactments where the general intent of the legislature is capable of being understood. The fact that the language used is capable of more than one construction is not fatal, nor does the necessity of interpretation render an enactment void. As is stated in 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 68, p. 119, "An act which is capable of any reasonable and practical construction, or is susceptible to a logical and sensible construction in a reasonable sense, with due regard being given to its purpose, or which is fairly susceptible to definite interpretation, is not too vague to be enforced." In Brink v. Dann, 33 S.D. 81, 144 N.W. 734, 741, the court said: The word "expansion" is a much used and well understood word and has been defined as synonymous with "enlargement." Webster's New World Dictionary. The following statements are quoted from 15A Words and Phrases, Expansion, p. 396: The word "activity" as used in this clause should be given its ordinary meaning which has been defined as "any specific action or pursuit." New World Dictionary. "Vocation or pursuit," Webster's Encyclopediac Dictionary, and in 2 Words and Phrases, Activity, p. 243, "The words `occupation' and `business' are synonyms of `activity.'" The only "activity" in which the defendant corporation is or was engaged, within the contemplation of the act, is farming and stock raising. SDC Chapter 11.12 granted several enumerated powers to the corporations granted charters thereunder; the "powers" referred to in the act are those same "powers." "Expansion of any * * * power * * * authorized prior to and in effect at the effective date of this act," refers to any power authorized by said chapter and still "in effect" at the effective date of the act. The contention that this limit of expansion of activities and powers might be construed to limit the number of members or curtail their individual activities is devoid of merit. Perhaps uncertainty existed as to the powers of defendant at the time of the issuance of the charter, owing in part to the powers claimed in the articles of incorporation. It is possible that the extent of the modification or the limitation of the powers under the charter by Chapter 18 of the Laws of 1953 may require judicial determination. The condition that the repeal of SDC Chapter 11.12 shall be a bar to any expansion of such powers, without enumerating them, neither creates new uncertainty nor adds to any previously existing. The use of general terms is clearly permissible. The courts will always be open to such corporations and its members to determine and define in proper cases the powers of and rights of such parties, and to enforce the requirement that "no injustice shall be done to the incorporators" contained in Article XVII, Section 9, of the South Dakota Constitution. We fully concur in the views expressed in the memorandum decision of the trial court that the act embraces a single subject which is sufficiently expressed in its title. The act does not impair the obligations of a contract in view of the reserved powers as contained in our Constitution. No issue of religious freedom is involved as the constitutional provisions relating thereto are not applicable to corporations. We find no absence of due process of law and no abuse of the reserved powers hereinbefore discussed, and no discrimination against defendant or any other corporation chartered under the repealed law. We are of the opinion that the act, Chapter 15, of the Session Laws of 1955, should be sustained in its entirety. We are of the opinion that when a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of SDC 11.12, shall subsequent to the effective date of the act, use more land in its agricultural activities than it has so used prior thereto, that this would constitute an expansion of the activities of such corporation in violation of the provisions of the act. The trial court in this case found that in 1953, the defendant leased the eighty acres in question, was unable to lease the same in 1954, but leased other land in lieu thereof. It is not claimed by plaintiff that the defendant was guilty of any bad faith in making the purchase of said tract, nor is any such indicated. Under this state of facts, we are of the opinion that the purchase of the eighty acres under these circumstances did not constitute an unlawful expansion of the activities or powers of the defendant corporation. The judgment of the trial court is modified by striking therefrom the paragraph *380 wherein the court adjudges and decrees that Chapter 15, of the laws of 1955, is too vague, indefinite, and uncertain to be enforceable, and is void for want of due process of law, and as so modified, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. No costs may be taxed in this court. SMITH and BOGUE, JJ., concur. ROBERTS, J., concurs in the result in so far as it approves the judgment below dismissing the proceedings. RENTTO, P. J., concurs with ROBERTS, J. KNIGHT, Circuit Judge, sitting for HANSON, J., disqualified.