200 N.E. 688 | Ind. | 1936
This is a consolidation proceeding brought originally by appellee as two separate identical actions, the first against appellant Frank Albert, and the second against appellant Delbert Schafer, both being actions for penalties and an injunction predicated upon the charge that the appellants were and for some time past had been engaged in the business of milk dealer, processor, distributor-producer, and distributing broker of milk without paying the license fee imposed, and without obtaining a license as required by Chapter 281 of the Acts of 1935 of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana (§§ 15-1701 — 15-1725, Burns 1933 Supp., §§ 3647-4 et seq., Baldwin's 1934 Supp.).
There were two paragraphs of complaint, the first to *287 recover the penalties fixed in the act, and the second was for an injunction to restrain each of the appellants from continuous violation of the act. The cases were consolidated, and the appellants separately and severally demurred to the complaint. The demurrer was overruled, and the appellants then filed four paragraphs of answer and a cross-complaint. The cross-complaint asked that the court declare the rights and status of the cross-complainants relative to different provisions of said act. A demurrer was filed to each paragraph of answer and the same was sustained. Motion by the appellee to strike out cross-complaint was overruled, and a demurrer to the cross-complaint was overruled. There was a judgment upon the pleadings without the introduction of any evidence. A motion for a new trial was filed by appellants which was overruled. The errors assigned for reversal are as follows:
1. The trial court erred in overruling appellants' separate and several demurrer.
2. The trial court erred in sustaining the appellee's demurrer to each paragraph of appellants' several answer.
3. The trial court erred in sustaining appellee's demurrer to the first paragraph of appellants' separate and several answer to the complaint.
4. The trial court erred in sustaining appellee's demurrer to the appellants' separate and several second paragraph of answer to the complaint.
5. The trial court erred in sustaining appellee's demurrer to appellants' separate and several third paragraph of answer to the complaint.
6. The trial court erred in sustaining appellee's demurrer to appellant's separate and several fourth paragraph of answer to the complaint.
7. The trial court erred in overruling appellants' motion for a new trial. *288
The Milk Control Act was enacted and approved March 12, 1935. Acts of 1935, Chapter 281, p. 1365. The Act consists of twenty-six sections and covers twenty pages. The title of 1-3. the act is as follows: "An Act declaring an emergency concerning the production and distribution of milk, creating a milk control board and defining its powers and duties and declaring an emergency." The appellants contend that the title of the Act is insufficient and in contravention of Art. 4, Sec. 19, of the Constitution of Indiana.
The above section has been thoroughly discussed and passed upon by this court and, as said in many cases, the purpose of the section is to prevent surprise or fraud in the legislature by means of a provision or provisions in a bill of which the title gave no information and to apprise the people of the subject of legislation under consideration. Crabbs v. State (1923),
With the foregoing rules of construction in mind we think the title of the Act is sufficient. It is sufficient to apprise the public and the legislators of the subject-matter; there is but one subject expressed in the title and so far as we are able to observe all sections of the Act are properly related thereto. It has been said that the word "subject" in said section indicates the thing about which the legislation is had, and the word "matters" the incident or secondary things necessary to provide for its complete enforcement. Board v. Scanlan (1912),
It is next contended by appellants that the act in question is in violation of Art. 1, Sec. 1, of the Indiana Constitution. This section is entitled "Natural Rights." If the act in 4. question properly comes within the police power of the state then it is not in violation of said article and section. We do not believe it can successfully be asserted that the regulation of the supply of milk for human consumption does not come within the police power of the state. Every state in the Union, so far as we are advised, has exercised this power in relation to milk. For many years prior to the enactment of the act in question, this state has exercised this power. See sections 35-1202, -1203, -1301, -1302, -1303, -1304, -1305, -1312, -1313, -1314, -1317, -1319, -1322, Burns' Indiana Statutes, 1933 (§§ 8433, 8450, 8455, 8456, 8457, 8458, 8459, 8467, 8451, 8452, 8468, 2690, *290
2693, Baldwin's 1934). The police power of the state may be exercised to require that milk for human consumption be wholesome and healthful. State v. Classer (1912),
So whatever rights the individual has under Art 1, Section 1, the public has the right, through the legislature, to regulate it for the benefit of the common interest of all, and when 5. this is done, there is no violation of said article and section. In the instant case no rights of the appellants were invaded under said section. The appellant, in his brief, says: "The *291 business of producing, purchase, processing, sale and distribution of milk is not a business `affected with a public interest,' and is not, therefore, subject to regulation as to the general policy of carrying on the business having no relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare it is unconstitutional and void." If the milk supply of the state is not affected with a public interest and has no relation to public health and the general welfare of our people, then, of course, the act would be invalid. But it is of common knowledge that the milk supply is affected with a public interest and has a direct relation to public health and the general welfare of the people. It is judicially known that milk and its by-products is a food absolutely essential to thousands of our citizens in order to sustain life, and if the supply was cut off for only a few days no one could foretell the dire calamity that would follow. Appellants were certainly not serious in making the above contention.
It is further insisted by appellants that the Act is in violation of Section 11, Article 1, of the Constitution of Indiana, which provides that the right of the people to be 6. secure in their persons, homes, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search or seizure, shall not be violated. Section 5 of the Act provides that the Milk Control Board is invested with power "to have access at all reasonable hours to enter any place where milk is being produced, processed, stored, bottled or sold. Such power may be exercised by any member of the board or any employee designated for the purpose and any such member or designated employee shall also have power, upon order of the board, to inspect all pertinent and material books, papers, records or documents at any place within the state for the purpose of ascertaining facts to enable the board to administer this act." This provision is not in conflict with *292 said Article and Section, supra. As stated, the provision is for the purpose of ascertaining facts to enable the board to administer and enforce the Act. It is not unreasonable to have an inspection of the place where milk is being handled in any form, and we have had in this state for many years milk inspection laws which are essential to the producing of pure and sanitary milk. Without such power of inspection our sanitary milk law would be useless and ineffective.
It has been decided by this court that proper officers shall have access to records and books of tax payers for the purpose of assessing property and that such inspection and examination is not in violation of Section 11, Article 1, supra; WashingtonNational Bank v. Daily (1906),
Section 6 of said Act provides that "Any person who violates any of the provisions of this act, or of any lawful rule or order of the board, shall be liable in the penal sum of not to 7. exceed one thousand dollars. Each day's violation of any such provision, order or regulation shall constitute a separate offense." It is claimed that this provision offends the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution and also Section 12, Article 1, of the Indiana Constitution in that the penalty is so disproportionate to the offense as to intimidate any person from contesting the law because of the consequences which might be inflicted if unsuccessful and without due process. Section 6 of the Act is for the purpose of making the act effective. As said in the case of Republic Iron Steel Co. v. State (1902),
It is said by the appellants that the act in question is void because it affects to deprive appellants of the right to a trial by jury. We do not so construe the act. If the action is 8. for the penalty, a jury may be had if requested. If it is a mandamus action a jury may be had if requested. If it is an injunction proceeding, then it would be tried by the court, as all injunction actions are.
It is further alleged by appellants that the act is void for the reason that it takes appellants' property without compensation and without due process of law, and is class 9. legislation. Under this proposition the appellants especially attack sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the act.
The regulation of the sale of milk for human consumption is a proper exercise of the police power of the state, and such regulation does not amount to the taking of private property without compensation in violation of Section 21, Art. 1, of the State Constitution. *294
As heretofore stated, the milk business is affected with a public interest and is subject to reasonable regulations, and "When the sovereign people of a state, acting through the legislature, find such police regulations necessary to protect public health, safety or morals, to prevent fraud or oppression, or to promote the general welfare, the power to act is supreme, subject only to such limitations as are imposed by the fundamental law. The question as to what regulations are proper and needful is primarily for legislative decision, yet when the police power is used to regulate a business or occupation which in itself is lawful and useful to the community, the courts, if called upon, must determine finally whether such regulations as may have been prescribed are so far just and reasonable as to be in harmony with constitutional guaranties." State v. Richcreek (1906),
"It was held in the case of City of Aurora v. West (1857),
In the case of Barbier v. Connolly (1885),
The appellants claim that the act is void for the reason that the board is granted the authority to fix the time it shall take effect in violation of Section 25, Art 1 of the 10. Constitution of Indiana. Section 7 of the Act provides: "Within thirty days after this act takes effect, or within such extended time as the board by general rule may prescribe, or before commencing business, each milk dealer, as defined in this act, shall apply to the board for a license to engage in business as a distributor, a producer-distributor, a distributing broker, or to conduct a retail store, as defined in this act, or in any one or more of said businesses, provided that each applicant shall apply for a license for each business in which he intends to engage . . ." Appellants can not be serious as to this contention. There was an emergency clause to the act which provided for the immediate taking effect of the act at the time of its passage. The act was in full force and effect at the time of its passage, and that part of section seven as set out, was for the benefit of those desiring to come within the act to have sufficient time within which to obtain a license as provided.School City of Marion v. Forrest (1907),
It is also contended by appellants that the act attempts unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the Milk Control Board. We do not agree with this contention. 11, 12. The act does not pretend to delegate legislative power. The character and nature of the Milk Board is administrative only, and the power given to the board, under the act, has been held to be legal and not unconstitutional in many cases similar to the instant. The power given to the State Board of Health is similar to the power given to the Milk Control *298
Board, and it was contended in the case of Blue v. Beach
(1900),
The rule in respect to the delegation of legislative power is well stated in Locke's Appeal (1873), 72 Pa. St. 491, 498, as follows: "Then, the true distinction, I conceive, is this: The legislature can not delegate its power to make a law; but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes, or intends to make, its own action depend. To deny this would be to stop the wheels of government. There are many things upon which wise and useful legislation must depend which can not be known to the law-making power, and must, therefore, be a subject of inquiry and determination outside of the halls of legislation."
It is further stated on p. 133 in the case of Blue v. Beach,supra, "That the power granted to administrative boards of the nature of boards of health, etc., to adopt rules, by-laws, and regulations reasonably adapted to carry out the purpose or object for which they are created, is not an improper delegation of authority within the meaning of the constitutional inhibition in controversy, is no longer an open question, and is well settled by a long line of authorities." Many authorities cited.
In the case of State v. Newark Milk Co. (1935), 118 N.J.E. 504,
The appellants object especially to the powers given under section 5 of the act in which the Milk Control Board is given power to (a) supervise the milk industry of the state; (b) to have access to enter any places where milk is being produced; (c) to determine a natural marketing area; (d) to adopt, enforce rules and regulations governing the proposition of the product of the entire herd of a producer which shall be accepted and paid for pursuant to such price as may be established by the board; (e) to establish reasonable trade practices between producers and distributors; (f) to regulate the marketing of milk at wholesale or retail in any marketing area, and (g) to determine the minimum prices to be paid by all licensed milk dealers for such classification of milk produced and furnished for consumption in any marketing area.
In our judgment none of the powers given the Milk Control Board under section 5 of the act are beyond the powers of the legislature, and are not an unconstitutional delegation of that power. Practically the same powers were given to the milk board under the New York act, and the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Nebbia v. People, supra, held the act to be valid and in reference to the fixing of a minimum price, using the following language: "It is clear that there is no closed class or category of businesses affected with a public interest, and the function of courts in the application of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments *301
is to determine in each case whether circumstances vindicate the challenged regulation as a reasonable exertion of governmental authority or condemn it as arbitrary or discriminatory. WolffPacking Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations,
"The lawmaking bodies have in the past endeavored to promote free competition by laws aimed at trusts and monopolies. The consequent interference with private property and freedom of contract has not availed with the courts to set these enactments aside as denying due process. Where the public interest was deemed to require the fixing of minimum prices, that expedient has been sustained. If the lawmaking body within its sphere of government concludes that the conditions or practices in an industry make unrestricted competition an inadequate safeguard of the consumer's interests, produce waste harmful to the public, threaten ultimately to cut off the supply of a commodity needed by *302 the public, or portend the destruction of the industry itself, appropriate statutes passed in an honest effort to correct the threatened consequences may not be set aside because the regulation adopted fixes prices reasonably deemed by the legislature to be fair to those engaged in the industry and to the consuming public. And this is especially so where, as here, the economic maladjustment is one of price, which threatens harm to the producer at one end of the series and the consumer at the other. The Constitution does not secure to anyone liberty to conduct his business in such fashion as to inflict injury upon the public at large, or upon any substantial group of the people. Price control, like any other form of regulation, is unconstitutional only if arbitrary, discriminatory, or demonstrably irrelevant to the policy the legislature is free to adopt, and hence an unnecessary and unwarranted interference with individual liberty.
"Tested by these considerations we find no basis in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for condemning the provisions of the Agriculture and Markets Law here drawn into question." In the case of Borden v. Ten Eyck,
The Nebbia case was first decided by the Court of Appeals of New York (1933),
It is stated by appellants that the appellee is not authorized to maintain the suit. We think it is. It is specifically declared in section 5 that the Milk Control Board is an 13. instrumentality of the state for the purpose of enforcing the act. In clause 7 of section 6 it is declared that "the board shall have power to enforce any provision of the act, or any provision of any rule or order of the board by injunction, mandamus *304
or any appropriate remedy." Also in clause 26, section 5, it is provided "In all cases where an order of the board is appealed from and in all cases to be commenced by the board . . ." See Inre Burk (1918),
The board has a legal existence and entity, and has both express and implied power to sue.
In section 1 of the act it is declared that the conditions surrounding the production of milk for human food has created an emergency which requires immediate correction. Section 25 14. declares the emergency period to be between the time the act takes effect and until July 1, 1937, and that the provisions of the act shall apply only during this period, unless the legislature shall otherwise provide.
The appellants contend that emergency has ceased to exist, and therefore, the law is no longer operative.
In the milk control law of New Jersey the legislature invoked the police power to enact what it declared to be an "emergency law, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety." In that act (1933) it was provided that it should expire July 1, 1935. The act was upheld in the case of State v. Newark Milk Co., supra, and the court, among other things, said (p. 518): "But, as was pointed out in the case of Nebbia v. New York, supra, the legislature is primarily the judge of the necessity of the law, and every possible presumption in favor of its validity will be indulged; and `though the court may hold views inconsistent with the wisdom of the law, it may not be annulled unless palpably in excess of legislative power.' While the finding by the legislature of the existence of conditions requiring such regulation, in the exercise of the police power, is subject to judicial review, we find no basis, in the present posture of the case, for the notion that this measure is an arbitrary or capricious exercise of legislative *305 power. . . . In the instant case, the exertion of legislative power was predicated upon a finding of immediate danger to the public health and welfare, and the consequent urgency of public supervision. And . . . the statute is entirely reasonable in its terms; there was no arbitrary action. The legislation is addressed to a legitimate end; and the measures taken are reasonable and appropriate to that end."
We do not think it is for this court to say that the emergency has passed, and that therefore the act must become inoperative now instead of July 1, 1937, the time fixed for its expiration by the legislature. We can not say that the legislature acted capriciously and arbitrarily in finding there was an emergency or in fixing the time for the act to expire. The legislature of 1937 may, for all we know, extend the period as was done by the legislature of New Jersey in 1935, in extending its 1933 milk control law. It is declared in section 1 of the act that "unfair, unjust, destructive and demoralizing trade practices have been and are now being carried on in the production, sale, processing and distribution of milk, which constitute a constant menace to the health and welfare of the inhabitants of this state and threaten the economic integrity of the milk industry." If, as the legislature found, there were unfair, unjust, destructive and demoralizing trade practices in the milk industry, and the act was passed to regulate these practices, this court can not say that the term or period fixed by the legislature to correct the practices is an unreasonable or arbitrary one. It was the destructive practices that created the emergency, and it is proper for the legislature to fix a reasonable time in which to correct and regulate the industry when the emergency will cease to exist.
We do not consider that the National Agricultural Adjustment Act has anything to do with the act in the *306 instant case as contended by appellants. Although this act was declared void, we have the decision of the same court, Nebbia v. People, supra, upholding the Milk Control Act of New York which is similar and in many respects identical with the act in question, and also the case of State v. Newark Co., supra.
Subdivisions 21 and 27 of section 5 are attacked as being invalid. Subdivision 21 provides that within thirty days after service of any order or decision of the board any person 15. affected by such rule, regulation, order or decision may appeal to the circuit or superior court of any county in which the subject-matter of the hearing is situated. Such court has jurisdiction to reverse, vacate or modify the order complained of, if, upon consideration of the record before the board, the court is of the opinion the order was unlawful or unreasonable. No new or additional evidence shall be heard by the court, but judgment shall be rendered on the record filed by the board. If new evidence is discovered by any party after the hearing by the board, it may be presented the same as a motion for a new trial.
Subdivision 21 does not undertake to empower the courts to control administrative or legislative discretion conferred upon the Milk Control Board. The effect of the subdivision, as we interpret it, is to give to the courts the powers to pass upon the reasonableness of any orders made by the board and to decide whether or not the same are lawful. This the courts have power to do. In re Northwestern Indiana Tel. Co. (1930),
Subdivision 27 of section 5 provides that from the final judgment or decree of the circuit or superior court entered upon any appeal taken from it, an appeal may be taken to the 16. Appellate Court of Indiana under the rules governing such appeals in civil *307 cases, except that if the Appellate Court does not render its decision within ninety days after the transcript of the record therein is filed with it, such judgment or decree so appealed from shall be conclusively deemed to be affirmed.
Under the foregoing section, an appeal having been provided for in certain cases to the Appellate Court, we do not think the legislature had the power to, in effect, compel the court to decide the case within ninety days. There must be an orderly procedure in the disposition of appealed cases, and to say that one class of cases must be decided within a specified time, and by failure to do so the judgment below must be considered affirmed, is an arbitrary and capricious classification. The act gives a right to appeal, and after one appeals and incurs the expense thereof, he should not be deprived of the right to have his appeal disposed of in the regular manner because of the failure of the court, for one reason or another, to decide it within ninety days.
Section 24 of the act provides that if any clause, sentence or part of the act be adjudged invalid, such judgment shall not affect or invalidate the remainder of the act. The ninety 17. day provision is clearly severable, and its effectiveness does not invalidate the validity of the remainder of subdivision 27 or the act as a whole. Subdivision 27 must be construed as giving an appeal without limitation of time when a decision shall be rendered.
The appellee assigned three cross-errors which are as follows: 1. The court erred in overruling appellee's motion to strike out the cross-complaint of appellants. 2. The court erred in overruling the appellee's demurrer to the cross-complaint of appellants. 3. The court erred in overruling appellee's motion to modify the judgment, order and entries made and rendered by the court on August 23, 1935.
While most, if not all, of the questions raised in the *308 cross-complaint were presented and urged by appellants in their demurrer and answer to the complaint, yet there was no error committed by the court in overruling the motion to strike out the cross-complaint, and in overruling the demurrer thereto. The cross-complaint stated facts sufficient to withstand a demurrer. There was nothing to have prevented the appellees from dismissing their complaint before trial, and in that event the appellants would have had the right to present the issues made upon the cross-complaint.
The appellee, in answer to the cross-complaint of appellants, admits and concedes that with respect to milk produced and purchased, and the title to which is acquired by Indiana 18. dealers in states other than Indiana for sale within the State of Indiana, appellee concedes that it can not prescribe, fix or regulate the minimum price to be paid to the producers of such milk. The case of Baldwin v. Seeling
(1935),
The lower court overruled appellants' motion for a new trial, and fixed an appeal bond in the sum of four hundred ($400) dollars to be filed within fifteen (15) days, and then 19, 20. added, "And if such bond is filed within said time and the appeal thereafter duly prosecuted, during such period of appeal the injunction herein entered shall be suspended provided that the said defendants and each of them comply with all lawful regulations and orders of the said plaintiff applicable *309 generally to the business of the defendants."
The appellees filed a motion to modify the judgment by striking out the part of the entry above quoted.
It is true, as admitted by appellants, that the taking of an appeal does not suspend the injunction. "An appeal does not vacate an injunction nor authorize its disobedience. Until reversed the appeal is effective and must be obeyed." Hawkins
v. State (1890),
In the instant case, however, there was, in effect, no real suspension. It was only suspended on the condition that the appellants complied with all lawful regulations and orders of the milk board applicable generally to the business of the appellants. Under such a suspension no possible harm could be done and no error was committed by the court in its refusal to modify the entry.
As heretofore stated, the milk control act of Indiana is very similar, and, in many respects, identical with the milk control acts of New York and New Jersey. Doubtless, the authors of the Indiana act had these acts before them when they wrote the Indiana act, and followed them to a large extent. The New York act has been held, in the case of Nebbia v. People, supra, constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, and the New Jersey act, in the case of State v. Newark, supra, has been held unconstitutional. While all the questions presented in the instant case were not presented in those cases, the fundamental principles are the same in all — the power of the legislature to regulate and control the production, transportation, processing, storage, distribution and sale of milk for human consumption.
We have not quoted at length from the New York and New Jersey cases. To have done so would have unduly extended this opinion. The New York case was *310 decided by the highest judicial tribunal of our land. These decisions alone are sufficient to justify the affirmance of the instant case. We are satisfied that no federal or state constitutional provision questioned by appellant is violated in the instant case and we find no available error.
Judgment affirmed.