*1 Cо., Sup. Ct. 301 U. S. michael v. Southern Coal L. Ed. 1245. 868, 81 recited the plead- appear
All essential above facts motion should have sustained. been ings and the with directions accordingly reversed judgment to so order. not participating. E. Bouck Francis
Mr. Justice 14,440. No. County Trust et District al. v. Landowners et al. (89 251) [2d] P. March Decided *2 Mr. Max D. B. Mr. Mr. I. Charles Melville, Melville, plaintiffs for in error. Sackmann, C. Bos
Mr. Messrs. Gaunt, Pershing, Nye, William W. A. Louis Mr. N. Mr. O. Diсk, Hutchinson, worth & Harry de Mr. Mr. N. Kelso, Behm, Fred Holland, fendants error.
En Banc. opinion
Mr. Justice Bakke delivered the of the court. plaintiffs Plaintiffs error, below, instituted unitary action to set aside a or bulk some two of sale hundred tax certificates tax officials county alleged grounds illegality, conspir- fraud, —on secrecy acy predetermined purchaser and a at a flat —to percentage regаrd discount, without actual and respective properties Application value of involved. temporary injunction restraining was made for a hearing, granted. sale, after which, an extended Sub- sequently, general the court sustained demurrer complaint amended and dismissed the action. assignments (a) “Chap- of error are as follows: 94] [obviously
ters and S. 105, L. 1935, void as public contrary pоlicy and and are be- welfare, void cause Constitution of contravention of sections 21 and 24, (b) Colorado, Chapters article [94] Y, S. L. were not intended to do not pre- authorize bulk sales of tax secret certificates purchaser per determined at a flat centum discount, respective regardless separate prop- values of the erties involved.” acts аre
Since both short we have occasion herein entirety, quote to consider we each in them full: disposition Chapter providing for the “An Act 94. hy counties. certificates of Assembly State the General “Be Enacted ' (cid:127) Colorado:' ‘‘ pos- Any having county in its Section 1. this state purchase re- control or under its certificates session sulting gen- nonpayment of sale of for the from the land may assign, such certificates eral sell oh transfer taxes, such-terms such at such 'and manner, times,' On of commission- board determined county county, ex- such and thereafter ers necessary ecute deliver such instruments right, fully convey title all of the interest county in to such certificates. Any having in its in this state
“Section possession its control under *3 nonpayment resulting of land for the sale of from the may drainage irrigation or assessments, district taxes or agreement of directors district with board pro- assign, such involved, sell or transfer certificates as vided 1 of in section this act. assignments, of sales
“Section All or transfers 3. purchase by are made certificates of counties heretofore validated confirmed. ‘‘ parts here- 4. All acts or of inconsistent Section acts hereby repealed. are Assembly oрinion of an In General 5.
“Section emergency act shall exists; take effect therefore, passage. after its from force Assembly hereby de- finds, The 6. General
“Section necessary to be for the act and declares this termines public peace, preservation health and of immediate safety.” February
“Approved 1935.” validating Chapter providing Act for and “An 105. purchase by drainage or disposition certificates of of irrigation districts. Assembly of State General
“Be It Enacted tbe Colorado: ‘‘ irrigation drainage in this Any district or 1. Section possession cer- control having or under its state in its resulting for land from sale of tificates drainage irrigation nonpayment taxes or district assign, may cer- or such sell or transfer assessments, such terms at and on times, in such such manner, tificates adopted by the board as be determined thereupon such district district, directors may be such instruments execute deliver right, fully convey in- necessary title and all of its such certificates. terest in or to drainage Any irrigation district hav-
“Section 2. possession ing control or under in its resulting non- land from the by agreement payment general with the taxes, county commissioners of board the аssign, certifi- or transfer such sell land situated, provided section 1 of this act. cates assignments, cer- or transfers of All sales “Section 3. drainage purchase by districts tificates and confirmed. heretofore made validated parts here- of acts in conflict All “Section 4. acts and hereby repealed. with are Assembly opinion In the the General 5.
“Section emergency take еffect act shall exists; therefore, an and passage. force after its
be in from and Assembly hereby de- finds, General “Section necessary for the to be and declares this act termines immediate public peace, preservation *4 health and of the safety. February
“Approved 1935.” 16, precipi- assuming which 1. the situation We are by litigation pronounce- our was caused tated the instant Thompson Commissionеrs, 91 Colo. v. ment in the case of (2d) 1932, case, In that 27, decided June 14 P.
214, commissioners] they [the were so obstructed “If we said: remedy the neither courts, lies nor with the them, legislature.” nothing- but with the the While said opinion Thompson concerning question in the case the public policy, judicial occasion we have on taken notice depression, wide the one ramifications the econоmic respective which the accumulation counties the large aof number of issued tax certificates to thereby on tax them sales with result that lands covered the the consequent
were taken off the tax loss roll, with injury govern- to revenue normal functions of ment. We think it not General be doubted Assembly simplified procedure fol- had mind to be by county lowed commissioners directors drain- age districts to the end thousands might again placed acres land on the sold for taxes by passing tax making roll, lawa it less difficult for them dispose of tax certificates. provision except
No our Constitutions, preambles, having is called our attention as vio been power Assembly lated, which concerns General pass here acts We v. involved. Johnson (2d) quoting McDonald, Colo. 324, 49 P. 332, 1017, “ frоm Reeder, Commonwealth Pa. v. ‘Whatever people have their not, constitution, restrained doing, they, through representa themselves from their legislature, may body repre tives do. This latter just completely their sents will a constitutional con open in all vention, left matters the written constitu ” say, opinion tion.’ If the Constitution not does “ continues, ‘Thou not,’ shalt if we no find inhibition, simply then the statute is the because it is will law, ’ ’’ people of because is wise or and not unwise. they preambles, As to not be invoked apart specific provisions from the Constitutions pp. invalidate a statute. 11 Jur. Am. 799-801. question 2. Do violate section acts article Y of our state Constitution, reads as fol except appropriation general lows? bill, “No bills,
151 passed subject, containing than which more one shall clearly expressed subject any if be shall title; its but any expressed embraced in be act which not be shall only there- title, such act shall as to so much be void expressed.” of as shall not sobe argument plaintiff point is, of counsel for on this only subject,
that because the title body one reveals “While legislative subjects,” contains three acts subjects fail. What are whiсh counsel must had in the three obscure, mind is but we assume them be those possession namely, italicized in the “in or brief, its under control,” manner, “such at such “on times,” exclusively applying terms,” that these words county, privilege disposing “the like of tax given city, city town, certificates is not to a or county; deprived likewise is treasurer certificates,” any authority regard chang- to such thus ing mentioning the duties оf these without them. officials urged chapter And it is because 105 irri- mentions gation drainage districts same result en- “the sues.” arguments, appears and similar
This to us, are with- plain, unambiguous language out merit, of the title upon point in each case indicates. No cases are cited this except, In re Colo. 24 Pac. re- Breene, 3, and the quirements fully there mentioned are satisfied titles of involved. acts here provisions do Nor these acts violate
section 24 Y, of article reads as follows: “No law provisions revived, amended, thereof only, extended or reference to its title conferred but so much thereof revived, extended or con- amended, as is published length.” ferred, shall re-enacted at We had occasion to consider section recеnt People, City County case 565, v. Denver Colo. (2d) opinion 88 P. 89, and in that we re-state the now recognized covering law constitutional Colorado provision. parties concerned that two conceded all *6 legislation challenged by previous here amend
acts do implication. concerning previ Nothing in either said is by disposition tax sale ous certificates drainage the offend but counties, districts, uncertainty ing ambiguity, confusiоn elements and wholly lacking. contrary the acts themselves are On the certainty brevity, of lan and commendable for choice consequently, guage do hold, if we even should which ; we following supra, People, in which 59 J. Denver C. v. not, amending applies 24 that to cited; is section laws previous by implication, hold could, would, we ones urged, objection these two here be acts vаlid as they have not in the which we cause do offend manner they constitutional must in to held order violate section. logical argument further illustrated
Counsel’s is two the revenue deduction follows: These laws amend “An Amend act some such Act to and should bear title as Act an an ‘An to Amend Act Entitled Section ... Chapter .. to ... Act Amend Section to an Amend Act Relating had theretofore A. Revenuе,” ’35 C. S. Assembly legislative practice. The General been example project- evidently an that was concluded certainty ing practice point where the a benefit sought evil to be and had avoided, worse than was absurdum. reductio become ad assignment
Coming of error, now to second that “chapters [94] S. L. were not in tax bulk sales and do authorize secret to, not, tended certificates to a purchaser predеtermined and at a flat respective regardless values percentum of the discount, separate properties involved.’’’ could dismiss We of the predicated saying assignment by simply it that alleged must assume facts which we aon number of the exist; but, not because found trial did the importance court give questions we shall some involved, of the though objection, merits consideration рass technically the court not on did the merits after joined in it have the However, the main case. did issues temporary restraining it facts before when issued action. in when it dismissed the had them mind order, Trust Plaintiff error District Landowners was, corporation been interested is, a Colorado had acquiring, holding promoting real' estate interests county. acquired of its had Much interest been years buying later tax certificates and recent sale procuring properties the cer- tax covered deeds to the figure moving all transactions tificates. secretary-manager the com- was Melville who one negotiated pany. had He time to from time tax for the officials represented several landowners individual *7 undoubtedly improved hope It his behalf. was under eventually climatic and conditions, economic trust the pay up on land in could all the back the taxes which persuade interested other was and likewise landowners to- Melville in to same. worked the district do the had years end for several but without substantial ward progress county concerned. There was so far as admittedly on which 50,000 acres land were around delinquent years, far for somе as had been several taxes back as 1930. spring
In the one a Denver real- Pulenwider, years been more or interest- tor, who for several had less making began immediately east of ed land Denver, inquiries relating He called about the to the same. taxes county the and talked with as them, on commissioners Finally, late a in the well to number of landowners. as might he that he interested fall, told thе commissioners Irrigation Denver Dis- in the the East certificates held dollar, the held Adams trict at ten county on cents those forty dollar. at cents on He was advised the county attorney, up Hill, the take matter the put price having county purpose the did, for he the 154 making inquiry legality the
on certificates, the of the transaction. appears justified the belief Melville was given
if such salе an was to be made that would he opportunity make the for but on the trust, justi- other hand, commissioners well have been fied the belief that after failure, because Melville’s years, payment any several effect substantial on lands amount taxes he no involved, was position to handle it. any
In 20,1937, December the board event, directors Irrigation Municipal of the defendant Denver East Dis- еmpowering passed county trict a resolution commis- ‘‘ county sioners to direct authorize and treasurer to assign offer for sale county’s sell, transfer all every right, title and interest each and to county in exhibit certificate listed A sums may fix commissioners determine for each of said A a list Exhibit 250 certificates.” about individu- ally pieces following land, each set out described form:
“Description of land Cert. Year Adams Co. B.D.M.I. B.D.M.I. “W% NE% 29-1-65 16622 No Sold Interest 88.96 Dist. Int. 287.08 District 28.70” 29-1-65 88.96 287.08 28.70” “W% NE% county filed with said resolution commission- on ers the same date. meeting on
Also same at com- date, following missioners, resolution was introduced *8 one of the commissioners: Agreement and
“Resolution the of County “Board of Commissioners of County, “Adams Colorado. agreement
“Whereas, in resolution and the Board County County, of Adams Commissioners State of referred to Colorado, shall be as the the ‘Board’; East Municipal Irrigation Denver District referred County to as ‘District’; the the Treasurer Adams ‘County county, Treasurer’; the Colorado, State of as and purchase large
“Whereas, number of certificates County has been issued to the District or result the of sales of within land located within said District and County, delinquent general taxes for Colorado, irrigation years and 1930, district for assessments 1931, 1933 and certificates are possession of said District; and purchase carries each of said
“Whereas, certificates by irrigation general all endorsement well as taxes, as- premises against district assessments, assessed by subsequent covered including said certificate to said and year 1936; and for and assessments
taxes long “Whereas, so said and owned certificаtes by County, im- held possible it is said District and/or payment general accruing to enforce taxes against and assessed such lands; levied proposes the District “Whereas, offer for sale and sell its certain interest so held certificates by proper copy and has resolution of Board, which proposed on file Clerk this Board, agree Board
that this with the District to dis- County’s posе of interest said certificates men- the. being tioned resolution, the same certificates as described Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof; and provided may it is law that
“Whereas, the District agreement assign with this Board sell, transfer cer- possession resulting tificates of in its from the nonpayment gen- within sale of lands District for may by agreement taxes; that District eral with this assign Board transfer sell, certificates resulting nonpayment sale of from the lands for the general district taxes assessments; direct order Board sale of county’s interest such such sums and as this Board determine; on terms *9 opinion it to the Board, is
“Whereas, in the pro- County that the said best posal of Adams interests accepted made to sell the said an effort be and including District certificates, both the interests County plаce covered the lands therein, and and thereby county; on the active tax rolls of the County Board of
“Now, resolved therefore, County, consideration after full commissioners Adams premises: of the County of of the
“1. That it is for best interests listed Exhibit that the certificates of Adams part of this reso- attached hereto and made which is A, lution, be for sale and sold. offered oppоsite certificate
“2. the amount set each That price for listed A fair and said Exhibit is a reasonable County in certificate. the interest of as contained “3. the offer of the District That hereby accepted said same be, and the agreed and to. County by the Board of Be Further Resolved
“And County County of the of Adams Commissioners hereby and authorized, and directed be, Treasurer he is еmpowered: right, assign title all the and transfer sell,
“1. To County Adams, Colorado, State interest of any said all of each, and to or person first A, hereto, in Exhibit attached listed offering pay for the amount fixed this Board to offering County’s also certificates; interest said pay the District for its interest amount fixed certificates. instruments, deliver such To “2. execute things may steps, be neces- do such take such right, convey all the sary to transfer and desirable County any in and to interest title and carry out certificates so sold certificate provisions of resolution. terms and any de- or all of above make sales To “3. *10 provisions certificates in accordance with the scribed days thirty (30) any time hereof at within from the date hereof. Adopted Brighton,
“Passed at ... this Colorado, day of A. D. 'December, 1937.”
Exhibit to which A, reference made the resolu- is giving description a list tion, a purchase covered the lands the certificates of the with amount of taxes thereon. adoption
The failed December 20th want of a second the motion, and so was at tabled, but subsequent meeting, regularly December it was 22nd, may adopted. It be that the that at time commissioners purсhaser, that knew Fulenwider the was to but specifically is not the record disclosed and the officials deny it. attempt is true Melville not know, did no notify proceedings
was made to the him, as to and actions adoption of the commissioners in connection with the publication the above neither resolution; was there any concerning notice action in board’s matter. justified Melvillе in his contention that he was entitled to final notice. The result, however, that the certificates for about A listed Exhibit were sold Fulenwider forty per on the basis to the $30,000, cent per and ten cent district. ill There was much will and considerable friction mani- during proceedings, course
fested these but the trial court concluded: “That commissioners had public-in- sufficient facts led to do this, them from standрoint. enough terest There was evidence , record to convince the that their court motives in this entirely proper.” matter were only
This on which conclusion removes basis illegality. sale could aside, be set fraud e., i. im- The mediate transaction have been “secret” to Mel- legal obligation no ville, but the was under board notify him, accordance with our conclusion
the laws under chapters sale was made, not supra, vulnerable of the consti- any tutional objections judgment dismissing urged, action is affirmed. E. Bouck Francis
Mr. Justice Bock Mr. Justice not participating.
Mr. Justice Burke dissents.
Mr. Justice B.urke dissenting. of this depends entirely upon affirmance judgment validity statutes cited and depend upon these compliance of their constitutional titles *11 indisputable mandates. seems these titles me do not “clearly,” all, if at express purpose acts. I therefore dissent.
No. 14,529. Sperry Devereux, Trustee v. et al. (89 532) P. [2d] Decided March Rehearing denied April 1939.