Court Opinion

ID: 9661232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:33:13.390659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:26.586068
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
MERRILL, Justice.
Counsel for appellee asks that the opinion be extended in order that two questions be answered: (1) Did our opinion in this case apply to the original “Unfair Cigarette Sales Act,” Act No. 805, Acts of Alabama 1951, p. 1402, or only to Act No. 78, which contained the five words which rendered that Act unconstitutional, and (2) If Act No. 805 remains in full force and effect, are the other amendments contained in Act No. 78 effective, or is Act No. 78 unconstitutional in its entirety?
In Judson v. City of Bessemer, 87 Ala. 240, 6 So. 267, 4 L.R.A. 742, an. amendment to § 38 of the Charter of Bessemer was held unconstitutional, and the court said, “The amending act, being unconstitutional and void, has no force or effect whatever. Section 38 remains unaffected, and as originally passed. Tims v. State, 26 Ala. 165.”
In Frost v. Corporation Commission of Oklahoma, 278 U.S. 515, 49 S.Ct. 235, 73 L.Ed. 483, it was said:
“ * * * But since the amendment is void for unconstitutionality, it cannot be given that effect, ‘because an existing statute cannot be recalled or restricted by anything short of a constitutional enactment.’ Davis v. Wallace, [257 U.S. 478, 42 S.Ct. 164, 66 L.Ed. 325],
“Here it is conceded that the statute, before the amendment, was entirely valid. When passed, it expressed the will of the Legislature which enacted it. Without an express repeal, a different Legislature undertook to create an exception, but, since that body sought to express its will by an amendment which, being unconstitutional, is a nullity and, *406therefore, powerless to work and a change in the existing statute, that statute must stand as the only valid expression of the legislative intent.”
It appears to be uniformly held that where there is a valid act and an attempted but unconstitutional amendment to it, the original act is not affected, but remains in full force and effect. Annotation 66 A.L.R. 1483; Re Opinion of Justices, 269 Mass. 611, 168 N.E. 536, 66 A.L.R. 1477; 82 C.J.S., Statutes, § 270; 16 Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional Law, § 184.
Having held the amendment unconstitutional, it necessarily follows that the original enactment, Act No. 805, which we held to be constitutional on its face in Simonetti, Inc. v. State, 272 Ala. 398, 132 So.2d 252, remains itnaffected and continues to be effective.
As to the second question, we hold that Act No. 78 was unconstitutional and was a nullity in toto. The Legislature evidently intended it to be considered in toto because the usual and customary “separability” or “severability” section was omitted from the amending statute.
We recognize that a separability clause should be given effect, where possible, to save a legislative enactment. Allen v. Walker County, 281 Ala. 156, 199 So. 2d 854; Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 246 Ala. 1, 18 So.2d 810. (We called it a severability clause in Hall v. Underwood, 258 Ala. 392, 63 So.2d 683 [16].)
Here, the absence of such a clause in Act No. 78, in connection with the fact that the part of the Act discussed in the original opinion was clearly of doubtful constitutionality, and as we stated — “it is difficult to understand why the five words were added by amendment to § 3 of the Act,” give evidentiary strength to our conclusion that the Legislature intended for all the amendments in Act No. 78 to stand or fall together, and thus, Act No. 78 has been stricken in its entirety.
Opinion extended and application for rehearing overruled.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.