Title: Rodgers v. Meredith
Citation: 146 So. 2d 308
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: October 25, 1962

146 So. 2d 308 (1962)
Curtis H. RODGERS, Circuit Clerk,
v.
M. C. MEREDITH, Sheriff.
4 Div. 22.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
October 25, 1962.
*309 Ewell N. Clark, Florala, for appellant.
Abner R. Powell, Jr., Andalusia, for appellee.
COLEMAN, Justice.
This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment denying a petition for mandamus to require the sheriff to make the reports in writing provided for by § 138, Title 45, Code 1940, which recites as follows:
*310 Plaintiff is the circuit clerk; defendant is the sheriff. Defendant's demurrer to the petition was overruled, whereupon defendant answered and testimony was taken. Judgment was rendered denying mandamus and plaintiff assigns this action of the court as error.
As we understand the briefs, decision on this appeal depends on the answers to two questions, i. e., (1) Is § 138 mandatory; and (2) Is the petition properly brought in the name of the clerk as plaintiff?
The parties agree that if the statute is not mandatory, but is merely directory and permits the sheriff to make the reports or not at will, then mandamus was correctly denied and the second question is not reached. We understand further that it is not disputed that if the statute is mandatory and the petition is brought in the name of the proper party, then the court erred in denying mandamus; but, although the statute be mandatory, if the petition be not brought in the name of the proper party, then mandamus was correctly denied.
Plaintiff asserts that the statute is mandatory. Defendant takes the contrary view.
Defendant asserts that the words of the statute, i. e., "it is the duty," are directory merely citing, Dorchester County Com'rs v. Meekins, 50 Md. 28, where the court held that a constitutional provision providing that "it shall be the duty of the General Assembly" to enact laws into articles and sections is merely directory so that a law enacted without observing the constitutional directions was not, for that reason, invalid.
In at least one case this court has held that a statute which commences, "It is the duty," imposed a mandatory duty which could be enforced by the writ of mandamus when it was applied for by a party entitled thereto. § 198, Title 13, Code 1940; Jackson v. Mobley, 157 Ala. 408, 47 So. 590. The words, "it is the duty," in § 138, Title 45, are no obstacle to giving that statute mandatory effect, notwithstanding the holding in Dorchester County Com'rs v. Meekins, supra, to opposite result.
Defendant argues that because no penalty is imposed for noncompliance with § 138, Title 45, the statute is not mandatory, *311 citing 50 Am.Jur. 49, Statutes, § 27. Defendant argues in brief as follows:
This court has said:
Looking to the origin of § 138, Title 45, we are of opinion that it was mandatory when first enacted. It appears as Section 1 of Act No. 11, approved February 22, 1881; Acts 1880-81, page 9, which recites in pertinent part as follows:
It will be noted that the act provided that:
1. Report of entry and discharge of prisoners be reported to clerk;
2. Clerk shall lay reports before court of county commissioners;
3. Court of county commissioners shall compare account presented by sheriff with reports filed by clerk and shall endorse account as correct or incorrect;
4. Sheriff shall not be paid for feeding prisoners without presentation of endorsed account;
5. Sheriff failing to comply with act, as to any prisoner, shall receive no pay for feeding such prisoner;
6. Sheriff failing to keep the book of account is guilty of a misdemeanor;
7. Any sheriff knowingly receiving payment to which he is not entitled shall be punished as if he had stolen the money so received.
The Act of 1881 certainly provided a penalty for failure to file the reports with the clerk. We think that Section 1 of the 1881 Act was clearly mandatory.
Section 1 of the 1881 Act was codified as § 4555 of the Code of 1886. The remaining sections of the act appear to have been omitted from the Code. The original purpose of Section 1 of the 1881 Act is clear. What purpose it is now to serve may not be so clear. We are not prepared to say, however, that the legislature cannot continue a mandatory duty imposed on the sheriff merely because the present purpose is not so clearly apparent as it formerly was.
As stated above, the court "knows nothing of the intention of an act, except from the words in which it is expressed, applied to the facts existing at the time." 222 Ala. at page 75, 131 So. at page 243.
When § 138, Title 45, was first enacted it was clearly mandatory because of the words employed and the facts existing at the time. It has been brought forward in five successive codes without material change. Our problem is to ascertain the intent of the lawmakers when they placed § 138, Title 45, in the presently effective Code of 1940.
It is within the power of the legislature, by reasonable regulation, to prescribe the duties of sheriff, provided no constitutional limitation is broken. No such limitation appears here. This power of the legislature is not questioned.
We think the intent of the legislature with reference to the mandatory or directory character of § 138, Title 45, can best be ascertained by applying the rules of construction which have been stated as follows:
See also: Gunter v. State, 83 Ala. 96, 3 So. 600; Zaner v. State, 90 Ala. 651, 8 So. 698; Miller v. State ex rel. Peck, 249 Ala. 14, 21, 29 So. 2d 411, 172 A.L.R. 1356.
In the instant case there is but slight change in Section 1 of the 1881 Act as it has been carried forward into the successive codes. We have undertaken to show that the provision of the 1881 Act, which made it the duty of the sheriff to file with the clerk the reports as to jail prisoners, was mandatory in the original statute, and not directory. The language of the Code utterly fails to express the legislative intent *314 to change the original operation and construction of what is now § 138, Title 45.
To hold otherwise, we would be forced to say that language which meant one thing in 1881 had an opposite meaning in 1886 and thereafter. We would be forced to say that the same statutory provision, which did not permit the sheriff, at his discretion to fail to report in 1881, did permit him to fail so to report in 1886, and now. We will not ascribe to the legislature the expression of one intent at one time and an opposite intent at another time by using the same language at both times. To so hold would be unreasonable and destroy the stability of the law. Because the original statute of 1881 was mandatory and has been codified without showing an intent to change its mandatory character, the codified statute, § 138, Title 45, Code 1940, is also mandatory.
We come to the second question, i. e., Is the petition properly brought in the name of the clerk, either individually, as appears to be the case, or in his capacity as clerk of the circuit court? The parties seem to treat the petition as being brought by him in his capacity as clerk, and we will so treat it.
Plaintiff argues that the statute is for the benefit of the clerk because § 201, Title 13, requires him, upon request, to furnish the chief justice "with all information as to * * * the number of prisoners in jail," and the reports made by the sheriff in compliance with § 138, Title 45, would assist the clerk in furnishing such information to the chief justice. For two reasons, we do not think that § 138 was enacted to help the clerk comply with § 201, Title 13. The first reason is that § 138, Title 45, appeared in the code many years before the forerunner of § 201, Title 13, was enacted in 1915; and the second reason is that the reports required by § 201, Title 13, are as to "the number of prisoners in jail" and not as to the number of prisoners reported by the sheriff to be in jail.
Plaintiff says also that § 138, Title 45, is to assist him in setting cases for trial as required by § 316, Title 15. We do not agree. The progenitor of § 316, Title 15, appears to be an act approved in 1877, some years before the enactment of Section 1 of the Act of 1881, supra. The second reason stated above as to § 201, Title 13, applies here also.
We are of opinion that § 138, Title 45, confers no private right on plaintiff, either individually or as clerk.
Appellee states in brief:
We hold that the duty here placed on the sheriff by § 138, Title 45, is a legal duty in which the public has an interest, as *315 distinguished from an official duty affecting a private interest merely. Under the settled rule, petition for mandamus to compel a public officer to perform such duty is properly brought in the name of the state on the relation of one or more persons interested in the performance of that duty. The instant petition was not so brought.
By demurrer, the defendant raised the objection that the petition shows that plaintiff is not entitled to maintain this action as clerk of the circuit court. The court overruled the demurrer. Defendant has cross-assigned this ruling as error.
The court erred in overruling this ground of demurrer. Kendrick v. State, supra. Defendant recognizes, of course, that, as to him, the error is without injury, because he prevailed in the final judgment.
We cannot, however, merely hold that mandamus was correctly denied because the petition was not properly brought, and so dismiss this point without further consideration. Orderly procedure and fair play forbid that a court be permitted to overrule a demurrer, and yet have its final judgment upheld because the demurrer ought to have been sustained, all without giving the party whose pleading is bad an opportunity to amend. Especially is this true in the light of §§ 238, 239, 1072, Title 7, Code 1940.
The right of amendment is to be liberally indulged; City of Bessemer v. Brantley, 258 Ala. 675, 65 So. 2d 160; but there must not be an entire change of parties; Spurling v. Fillingim, 244 Ala. 172, 12 So. 2d 740. The statute does not permit striking the sole party plaintiff and substituting another in his place. Leaird v. Moore, 27 Ala. 326; Pickens v. Oliver, 32 Ala. 626. In a case where mandamus was awarded, this court said:
The implication is that the amendment would not be allowed if it did work an entire change of parties.
In the case at bar, then, if plaintiff be afforded an opportunity to amend as to the party plaintiff, he cannot properly substitute the state on his relation for himself without offending the rule. Accordingly, the judgment denying the writ is due to be affirmed because the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain the action and cannot amend the complaint so as to entitle him to do so.
It necessarily follows, however, that the judgment here is not res judicata so as to bar another action properly brought in the name of the state on the relation of a person having a proper interest, because the state on such relation is not a party to the instant action.
Affirmed.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and GOODWYN, JJ., concur.