Opinion ID: 1181554
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: revision act

Text: AN ACT for the codification and general revision of the laws of the State of Wyoming, defining what shall constitute the Revised Statutes of Wyoming, 1931, and revising sundry provisions of existing law; fixing the compensation of the revision commission; and providing for the codification, editing, printing, certification and sale of such revised statutes; and making an emergency appropriation therefor. We are convinced from a careful reading of said Chapter 73 that the Revised Statutes of 1931 was a complete, comprehensive general revision of the laws of Wyoming complying in all particulars with Section 24, Article III of the Wyoming Constitution. Without quoting at length from said Chapter 73 we suggest a careful reading of, Authority of Revision Commission, Sec. 1 of Chapter 73; Nature of Revision, Sec. 2; Arrangement of Laws, Sec. 3 and Legislative Printing and Supplies, Sec. 4. It will readily be seen therefrom that a complete general revision of the laws of Wyoming was contemplated by the Wyoming Legislature. The Legislature placed the matters about which defendant Pitet complains, by the enactment into law the Revised Statutes 1931, in Chapter 86 thereof, entitled Physicians and Surgeons, containing Sections 86-101 to 86-117 inclusive. That the Legislature had in mind the medical practice of physicians and surgeons by the Revision of 1931 is evident because by Sec. 52 of Chapter 73 of the Session Laws 1931, Sec. 3524 Wyoming Compiled Statutes 1920, as amended and re-enacted by Sec. 3, Chapter 126, Session Laws of Wyoming 1925 was revised and re-enacted, the Sec. 52 referred to having to do with revocations of certificates by the Board of Medical Examiners. Having in mind the foregoing, we have no doubt that the Revised Statutes 1931 was a revision authorized and enacted by the Legislature within the constitutional provisions, providing for the general revision of laws under Section 24, Article III of the Wyoming Constitution. The question of codifications and revisions is discussed under the title statutes in 59 C.J. 798, § 376, where these statements are made: It has been held that a constitutional provision requiring every act to embrace but one subject, to be expressed in its title, does not apply to codifications or general revisions of statutes; but it would seem more accurate to say that a codification or revision does not relate to more than one subject, within the meaning of such a provision, and that a title expressing that subject is not insufficient for failure to specify each subject to which the statutes, as revised, relate. Under a constitutional provision expressly excepting acts for codification or general revision from its requirements, it has been held that a statute which has for its purpose a revision of all existing code provisions on a particular subject is not within the constitutional restriction.    And where, as contended by defendant, a law was invalid when passed it may become valid by its incorporation in a properly revised code. Sec. 59 C.J. 892, § 489: Although an act is invalid because it was not passed in accordance with constitutional requirements, it may nevertheless become a statute on its adoption as part of a code or revision. The adoption and incorporation into a code of an act which as originally passed was in violation of a constitutional provision against amending or repealing laws by reference to title only cures the defect in this regard. This is so even though the original law was unconstitutional, as stated in 59 C.J. 892, § 489: Defective Original Title. Although an act was unconstitutional as originally passed on account of containing matter different from what was expressed in its title, or referring to more than one subject, if otherwise constitutional, it becomes valid law on its adoption by the legislature and incorporation into a general revision or code, without reference to its title as originally enacted.    A good statement of the law in that respect is set forth under the title statutes 50 Am. Jur. 184 § 203: It has generally been held that codes and compiled or revised statutes intended to express either the whole of the general laws of a state, or of some great subdivision of such laws, may be adopted by one act under a general title without violating a constitutional provision prohibiting the enactment of any bill containing more than one subject and requiring that subject to be expressed in the title. In this respect, it has been declared that any construction of these constitutional provisions that would interfere with the very commendable policy of incorporating the entire body of statutory law on one general subject in a single act, instead of dividing it into a number of separate acts, would not only be contrary to its spirit but also seriously embarrassing to honest legislation. Sometimes, bills for the codification and general revision of laws are expressly exempted from the constitutional provision that no bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. In the Alabama case of Bales vs. State 63 Ala. 30-34, where the court had before it a statute not originally conforming to constitutional rules as to revising and amending laws, had this to say: Whether the mode of legislative procedure, prescribed by the last clause of the second section of the fourth article of the constitution of 1868, was observed in the original enactment of this statute, is not a question of any importance in this cause. It was introduced into, and forms a part of the present Code, which, in all its parts and provisions, was enacted in conformity to the constitution, and embodies all public statutes, of a general and permanent nature, of force in the State. Dew v. Canningham, 28 Ala. 466; Hoover v. The State, 59 Ala. 57. It may embrace statutes not originally enacted in the forms prescribed by the constitution; and if that be true, they are valid, not from the day of their original enactment, but from the day the Code became operative. See also the later Alabama case Builders and Painters Supply Company vs. Lucas 24 So. 416-419, 119 Ala. 202. In the Idaho case of Anderson vs. Great Northern Ry. Co., 25 Ida. 433, 138 P. 127-129, that court observes: The objection that section 5140 of the Revised Codes, as originally enacted and found in the 1899 Session Laws, pp. 153, 116, is unconstitutional and in violation of section 16, art. 3, of the state Constitution, is without merit, for the reason that this section was subsequently incorporated in the Revised Codes and was adopted as a part of the entire body of the Revised Statutes and as a part of the complete code of laws of the state. It is now too late to raise the sufficiency of the title to a statute originally adopted prior to the date of the adoption of the Revised Codes, where such statute has been incorporated in the general code of laws. 36 Cyc. 1068; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. State, 31 S.E. 531, 104 Ga. 831, 42 L.R.A. 518; Kennedy vs. Meara, 127 Ga. 68, 56 S.E. 243, 9 Ann. Cas. 396; Christopher v. Mungen, 61 Fla. 513, 55 South. 273. See also Curoe vs. Spokane & I.E. Ry. Co., 32 Idaho 643, 186 P. 1101. A leading case upon this subject and cited in texts, Encyclopedias of Law and Annotations, is the case of Central of Georgia Ry. Co. vs. State 104 Ga. 831, 31 S.E. 531, 42 L.R.A. 518. It was there contended by the Company that the act before the court and the subject of the controversy was unconstitutional because it contained matters different from what is expressed in the title thereof. The State, on the other hand, contended that said act being codified as Sec. 2189 of the new code, the Act of 1895, adopting and making of force that code cured all of those defects, if any, which had existed in the prior act. The opinion is long and we briefly summarize the holding of the Georgia court by quoting the syllabus: The effect of this act is to make as part of the law of the state all new matter embodied in the Code of 1895 which could be constitutionally enacted by the legislature. It follows, therefore, that an act, though unconstitutional as originally passed, on account of containing matter different from what was expressed in its title, if otherwise constitutional, became valid law by its incorporation in the present Code, upon the passage of the act first above mentioned. 42 L.R.A. 518. There was an attempt to raise this question in re Gillette Daily Journal 44 Wyo. 226-233, 11 P. (2d) 265, but there no reference was made to the Revised Statutes of 1931, the contention being that the Section 3 of the law there under consideration having been embodied in the revisions and compilations of 1899, 1910 and 1920, it was thereby validated. This court held that: neither the revision of 1899 nor the compilations of 1910 or 1920 were approved by the legislature subsequent to the time that they were made. The situation is now entirely changed, as we have stated, the revision of the statutes by the legislatures of 1929 and 1931, and the acts of the revision commissioners in compliance with the mandates of the legislatures come squarely within the provisions of the Wyoming Constitution. Now the cases cited in re Gillette Daily Journal 44 Wyo. at page 233 are in point, as this court said the principal cases are: Central etc. R. Co. v. State, 104 Ga. 831, 31 S.E. 531, 42 L.R.A. 518; Kennedy v. Meara 127 Ga. 68, 56 S.E. 243, 9 Ann. Cas. 396; Christopher v. Mungen 61 Fla. 513, 55 So. 273; Ex parte Ferguson, 112 Tex. Crim. 152, 15 S.W. (2d) 650; State v. Horner, 35 So. Dak. 612, 153 N.W. 766; Anderson v. Railway Co. 25 Ida. 433, 138 Pac. 127, Ann. Cas. 1916, c. 191; Park v. Cotton Mills, 75 So. Car. 560, 56 S.E. 234. Without reviewing the last cited cases at length, we say that we are in accord with the principles therein enunciated. If Chapter 73 Session Laws 1931 means anything, it means that the legislature had as its purpose to adopt and make effective a code of laws to be known as the Revised Statutes of 1931. Its intent was to give force, vitality and effect to every section of the revision by legislative enactment. The answer to Reserved Question No. I is, No. The answer to Reserved Question No. II is No. The answer to Reserved Question No. III is, No. BLUME, C.J. and RINER, J. concur.