Oklahoma City v. Griffin
403 P.2d 463
Okla.
1965
Check Treatment

*1 40g judgment jury’s verdict jury, the disturbed on not he thereon will

hased any reason-

appeal evidence if there support it.”

ably tending to as may stand insofar damages is reversed

allows actual damages. exemplary

recovery of affirmed.

Judgment as modified WILLIAMS, J., and

JACKSON, C.V. IRWIN,

BLACKBIRD, BERRY and

HODGES, JJ., concur. CITY, municipal corporation,

OKLAHOMA Error, City GRIFFIN, Treasurer of the

Harold Osmus, City Munici and Duane Oklahoma pal Traffic Court Clerk of Okla Error, City, Defendants in homa Oklahoma ex rel. State Board Education, Intervenor, Inc., Civic, Club,

Oklahoma Motor Non Corporation, Profit Oklahoma Intervenor.

No. 40968.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

May 11, 1965.

Rehearing Denied June 1965. Counselor, Semtner, Municipal

Roy H. Gregg, Municipal Asst. Coun- Carroll E. *2 error, ing might be determined by resolving selor, plaintiff for above stated issue after City. submission to the Oklahoma court their briefs on it. Gen., L. Nesbitt, Atty. Charles Charles intervenor, Thereafter, Gen., Atty. judgment sustaining in its for Owens, Asst. motion, specifically defendants’ the court State of Oklahoma. 24, constitutional, held S.J.Res. Harry Johnson, City, Oklahoma Okla- for concerning accord with its “Memorandum” Ass’n, homa Driver Education amicus aspects various which said Resolu- curiae. alleged tion was to be unconstitutional. Land, City, Harold Oklahoma for in- J. overruling After its motion for a new tervenor, Club, Oklahoma Motor Inc. trial, perfected appeal. this urges propositions five re- HALLEY, Chief Justice. versal but we will discuss their sec- appeal The issue in this be described ond, which is: generally constitutionality as the of En- “Enrolled Senate Resolution rolled (S.J.Res. Senate Joint Joint special con- No. 24 is a law enacted 24) adopted by Twenty-Ninth Okla- trary Article Section Legislature, homa with reference to Driv- Oklahoma Constitution.” er Education. See pages S.L. 753- inch; O.S.Supp. 1963, both 1210.- think that Article §§ We Section 21-1210.33, plain- both incl. It arose when our sit- Constitution controls Oklahoma error, tiff in hereinafter referred to as applicable parts this here. The uation plaintiff, sought enjoin to restrain and section are as follows: error, defendants in hereinafter referred to Legislature not, “The except shall defendants, as complying from with said provided as otherwise in this Consti- provisions, Resolution’s particularly those tution, pass any local or law au- its Section which reads as follows: thorizing : (cid:127) n * n » n n n each “From fine collected or bail

,in month fine to the tion, er Education Fund amount of Two Dollars the Motor Vehicle Code of this state operation State Treasurer for credit to shall be transmitted at the end of the fenses or as a forfeited as a turn there relating deposit of motor county ordinance shall be penalty official such amounts with the parking treasurer who shall vehicles, except hereby created, for violation of collecting relating separated ($2.00) registra- which Driv- of- tricts tricts paid into the treasury; cities, towns election or powers and school dis- ties, feitures, and refunding moneys legally cities, “Remitting [*] “Creating “Regulating, [*] ; ; towns, wards, or school dis- [*] [*] duties of offices, fines, [*] [*] the affairs of penalties and for- or prescribing the [*] officers, [*] [*] [*] counties, in coun- [*] [*] which fund shall be reserved for the exclusive use and State Board of Education to assist in expenditure by actions; “For [*] limitation [*] [*] civil [*] or criminal [*] [*] defraying the cost of driver education The collection and funding clause of provided in this resolution.” Resolution No. O.S.Supp. now 70 appropriate pleadings by par- After 1210.29, out, exempts heretofore set § towns ties, including the intervenors named in the villages separation feature, from the caption, above filed defendants a motion but the citizens of towns share the ben- pleadings; on the and the efits of legislation by virtue their parties effect; agree, in rul- public court’s participation schools therein. We O.S.Supp. think the vice of 70 Okla.Const., provides Sec. 1210.29, that a percentage part: of fines § forfeitures collected in cities and counties “Every Legislature act of the shall is to he used to finance driver education *3 subject, but embrace one which shall be non-contributing villages and towns of clearly expressed title, in its Oklahoma. Provided, any if That be em- In Fenimore v. State ex rel. Com any contrary braced in provi- act to the Office, missioners of Land 200 Okl. section, sions of this such shall act be we said: void as to so much of the law as expressed not be laws,

“Special the title prohibited by there- Sections of.” 46 and Article of the Con- Oklahoma, stitution of are which those pro- Section 24 it is No. apply to less than the whole a class vided (70 O.S.Supp.1963, 1210.29) that § things standing persons, entities or separated $2.00 shall from certain fines upon footing same or in substan- and forfeitures collected— tially the same circum- situation or “ * * * which shall be transmitted not a uni- stances hence do have at the by end the month the official operation.” form collecting county such fine to the treas- Com also et al. Board of See Barrett deposit urer who shall in turn such al., County et missioners of Tulsa amounts with the State Treasurer for 111, 90 P.2d 442. to the credit Driver Education Fund Enrolled hold that Section We hereby created, which fund shall be Leg Resolution Senate Joint reserved the exclusive use and ex- islature unconstitutional. is penditure by the State Board of Educa- point we tion assist holding defraying on this to the cost of In view of our necessary provided to it discuss driver education as in this not deem do by plaintiff. resolution.” propositions raised other is re- trial court judgment of the The clear that foregoing is From con- Section 9 as it holds in so far versed by the Fund is created Education Driver stitutional. by fund is created Legislature; or the municipal received county officials BERRY, JJ., WILLIAMS, IRWIN deposit with by county treasurers concur. be credited Treasurer State By the Resolution Education Fund. Driver specially. J., concurs JACKSON, V. C. de- are municipal governments county and theretofore which had prived of revenues HODG- DAVISON, BLACKBIRD in financ- governments these been used ES, JJ., dissent. of this obligations. The loss ing their officials be of concern (concur- would revenue JACKSON, Vice Chief Justice county governments municipal and specially). ring financing responsibility of charged with upon largely based My concurrence they were yet governments, these City’s brief of Oklahoma Proposition IV county proposed diversion alerted to asserted: it is wherein title of by the revenues Resolution Senate “Enrolled Joint identified Resolution 24. The subject not general No. 24 embraces title explained its follows: body is title; and its expressed in relating to Resolution title, viola- “A both said than broader Joint education; providing driver’s 57 of Article Section tion of pozvcr with Education Board Constitution.” Oklahoma regula- BLACKBIRD, promulgate certain rules and (dissenting). Justice fund; tions a driver education creating opinion. majority I cannot concur in the financial assistance schools providing It holds Enrolled Senate Joint course; fixing effec- offering apparently unconstitutional on (emphasis tive date resolution.” ground sole that it is a I do law. supplied) agree. present I think the attack on upon said Resolution should fail all appear that the From the title would grounds upon which its constitution- will create the State Board Education ality is assailed. fund with school revenues school funds or Majority’s conclusion that Senate within their control. This title would not *4 (hereinafter 24 county municipal re alert officials to the and Joint merely ferred to as “the Resolution” or fact of their revenues would be that some law, 24”) special a approval is stems from the legislative diverted “S.J.R. (called the fact our attention under Resolution. Proposition Plaintiff’s II) that the ordi Johnson, In ex rel. Short 90 nances, from whose violation the Drivers 21, 945, purpose Okl. 215 P. the reason and money, Education Fund derives its are 5, 57, Okla.Const., was care- Sec. “city” ordinances —with mention in the no fully explained, in the considered and and ordinances, Resolution of town or contribu paragraph syllabus third of the we held: tions to said Fund from their violation. complains that the Resolution does supreme legislative “Inasmuch as the require not villages traffic offenders in state, power including of the the help pay towns to the cost the Drivers acts, reject legislative is reserved to program, yet Education it does not exclude 2, 3, people by 1, the sections art. 5 people in receiving those from localities Constitution, primary object one such education and the bene accompanying 57, of the above of section program. fits of theory, the Plaintiff’s 5, art. is that of an the title act shall apparently upheld by Majority that, the is notice, leg- bear clear this, in Legislature placed the has violaters body, the islative but to electorate of city ordinances in a and artificial state, may the of what act contain.” class, with logical no reason for such a 24, Since title correct, classification to exist. If this is quoted, not bear clear notice to the would and, purposes for 24, cities, of S.J.R. “ body legislative and to the electorate that * * * villages, towns and are entities * * * Fund Driver Education would be standing upon footing the same *”* part created in substantial a diversion substantially or in the same situation then, municipal revenues, county clearly, I am of under the definition of a “special quotes Majority law” that the Resolution, from that it view insofar as Fenimore v. State ex rel. Commissioners of requires separation from each $2.00 Office, 400, 852, Land Okl. P.2d fine collected or bail forfeited for violations 5, this Resolution violates Article section city of the Motor Vehicle ordi- Code 46 of our But, my opinion, Constitution. in 5, 57, nances, violative of Art. Sec. Okla. cities, towns, villages do not stand supra. Const., agree I therefore with the “upon substantially the same footing or in majority that trial ”* * * many the same situation in it court be reversed in so must far as holds respects. 9, supra, Section constitutional. has, reason, good Legislature Our with I am that WIL- authorized to state often dif- classified such units LIAMS, BERRY, JJ., concur and, IRWIN ferently many legislative purposes; for opinion logical expressed. my good, the views herein there reason classification, differently only requires regard but that the classifying them for statute, By village classification be reasonable. to drivers education. popu- minimum or town must have a certain recognizes substantially This court the same (see Tit. lation become before criteria, above, determining as indicated larger O.S.1961, city’s 551); and a legislative compliance with Art. many population creates conditions which Hale, supra. Wilkinson v. 184 Okl. See villages. Our do not exist towns wording In 307. pas- Legislature recognized in the has Legislature specifically has many applicable geographi- sage of laws recognized proper education “ cal, municipal, larg- containing units and/or in- motor vehicle drivers would populations, purport apply er do evitably long major become a factor in the this, populous examples to less units. For range curtailment of motor vehicle acci- Crum, * P.2d see Bell v. 188 Okl. acci- dents ”. Since more of such County Excise and Lowden v. Oklahoma pop- dents occur and around cities where Board, P.2d 448. In the congested ulation is vehicle motor case, recognized, as a matter latter we concentrated, say- goes traffic is without knowledge, coming counties common ing greater that the need driver educa- specified within classification in the tion also exists there. these view of *5 need Act much more there involved “have facts, altogether logical it is I think ”* agencies for the services place reasonable such urban areas in a ” provided by said Act than classification, category, different or than congestion popula- less of counties with so, then, towns, villages, and rural areas. If tion”; congestion and further said: “The authorities, according to the above cited object population closely to the is related 24, law; and, special giving is not a S.J.R. Likewise, legislation.” attained presumption effect to the of constitution- population congestion of we know that ality Legislature are to which acts of the relationship a the number bears direct 493, State, (Wright 137 entitled v. 192 Okl. offenses, traffic and con- character of 796, correctly 797), hold it P.2d we cannot sequently, need of driver education. to the proscription violative of our Constitution’s 827, Barbour, Cal.App.2d Sawyer 142 In v. against such laws. 187, 193, which involved the con- 300 P.2d V, plaintiff Proposition In its stitutionality to reimburse Cali- of an act question charges in is that the Resolution money appro- Fund for fornia’s General raising bill and “a revenue meas- a revenue education, therefrom, priated for driver I, Proposition argument, ure.” Its under court said: that, originated 24 in the is because S.J.R. Senate, requirement “A general applies law is it violates the when 33, 5, equally persons sec. to all in Oklahoma Constitution’s embraced a natural, raising revenue shall class founded on in- that: “All bills for some trinsic, Representatives. originate in the or constitutional distinction. It House » * ** -pjje raises, special question privi- in particular if it confers creates, leges imposes the effect of peculiar or or no revenue. It has disabilities particular pur- merely ear-marking or for a burdensome conditions in the ex- accumulating pose, already right that are ercise of common on a class of funds Code, city persons arbitrarily under the Motor Vehicle selected from the operation general body pre- relating those in ordinances who stand quoted Consequently cisely the same relation to the motor vehicles. Gas, 33, etc., 5, supra, is not of Art. the law. Serve Yourself connection, Ass’n, Brock, 820, 813, applicable In see the v. 39 Cal.2d to it. Ritterbusch, 22 against prohibition P.2d 545. The discussion Anderson v. 761, legislation preclude Okl. P. 1002. does not out, 22, points Land, 640, that be- Assuming, as 101 Okl. P. 35 A.L.R. 24, col- funds 872.” fore enactment forfeitures for viola- as lected fines principles above enunciates some of the could, pro- under the tion of ordinances followed states whose constitutions are 726, O.S.1961, sections visions of Tit. materially different from Oklahoma’s. 958.10, 751, 797, 916, be used 957.9 See, instance, State ex rel. operation their enacting cities in the Gronna, 673, Minot 79 N.D. 59 N.W.2d governments, it not fol- does own 514, 529-541, McQuillin, Municipal Cor low, plaintiff represents, that “it most porations (3rd Ed.) Vol. sec. 4.95. Even al- certainly possible is not if it be conceded that what is done with enactment, locate, by said resolution’s fines collected for the violation of munici help defray portion of such funds to pal municipal affair, ordinances is a I think education, expense plain- driver to which incidentally 24 affects this expense”. Certainly, tiff refers as a “State accomplishment proper in the object of a lacking Legislature, in the extra-municipal, state-wide, concern, e., i. recognized that to do this. It is well education; driver and therefore highways, and control over streets rightfully apply even to such collections similarly regulation of motor over connection, charter cities. In this notice thereon, the cor- vehicular traffic within discussions State ex rel. Burns v. porate municipalities is re- limits of its Linn, 49 Okl. 153 P. Ann.Cas. state, except far as the served to the in so 1918B, 139, Walters, and Wilson v. 19 Cal. to said Legislature delegates such control 2d 119 P.2d 344. Casualty municipalities. See Continental Proposition plaintiff states, 1014; Lolley, 140 P.2d Co. v. substance, $2.00, Rowlett, Martin v. Okl. *6 prescribes “separated” Resolution to be 1090; King (Okl.Cr.) P.2d v. State forfeitures, from fines and and transmitted regulation bearing has a direct 370. Such by collecting the deposited official and upon public safety welfare, and is a Fund, credit to the Driver Education is in interest, only public matter of but state- reality a tax for common schools “levied concern, proper subject wide and is a by implication.” deduced Plaintiff’s police power. the exercise of the State’s argument assesses, provision that or Driver education comes within the same levies, tax, is based reasoning on that since City category. As said of Claremore v. the by minimum fine assessed most cities and Commission, Oklahoma Tax if, (irrespective counties is costs), $1.00 169 P.2d 299: reads, as section 9 “an amount of Two “ * * * The state has the ($2.00) Dollars “separated” require municipal per- subdivisions to collected, from each fine then minimum the form certain duties of state concern. fine must be raised from to at least $1.00 Where obligation such is incurred in $2.00, complied so that said Section can be the discharge duty of a which is of Defendants, with. hand, speak on the other public interest, state or the cannot portion” as requiring “a S.J.R. object upon ground thereto the that by of fines collected go cities to the into duty imposed such was without Thus, Driver Education Fund. as the issue city’s consent. (Citing au- joined, the effect of section as re- thorities) tax, quiring a assessment, new or to be col- by State, lected depends the courts powers of this “The corpora- upon whether said being tions section in- state, necessitated derived from the creasing the minimum through legislature, fine to at powers least such $2.00 granted, be enlarged, entirely or order to afford the transmittal of that withdrawn at Sapulpa will. amount to the Driver Education Fund. given It 9, supra, can be was never intended constitutional opinion section my provisions, with, the amount such as the one interpretation. I think here dealt no every fines, containing provisions referred that law af- separated “from” to be fecting incompatible provisions therein, necessarily pre- said section’s limits statute, statutes, vious or more than should set out to fines of application $2.00. interpretation of those statutes in full. noting After opinion that this am of theory practice legislature common of the deprives plaintiff’s said section modifying existing state of complete answer statutes sub- validity, is a its sequent original specifically ones not amend- Proposition V. its ing them, Supreme Washing- Court contends, Propositions under Plaintiff ton, Tremper, in Mahler v. 40 Wash.2d IV, violates No. Ill and 627, 631, noted that that was “not provisions section 57 of certain thing prohibited” by the kind of that State’s This Resolu- the Oklahoma Constitution. II, (Art. quoted 37), Constitution said, first, following to violate the tion is excerpt Pollard, parte from Ex 40 Ala. portion said section: 77, containing following: “ * * *; shall be re- and no law “ * * * so, If this were it would vived, amended, provisions there- or impossible legislate. The consti- conferred, by reference or of extended tutional reaches those cases only; thereof but so much to its title strictly amendatory where the act is or extended, revived, amended, as is revisory prohibi- in its character. Its pub- shall be re-enacted and conferred against tion practice is directed length: lished at revising laws, amending or or other 24, changes points out alterations, presence which without the distributive, distribution, de- original usually and/or act are unin- for- pository portion of a fines telligible. complete If a law is in itself counties in cities and feitures collected intelligible, form, original referred to sections under the hereinbefore meaning it does not fall within the supra, for the violation of Title spirit of the Constitution.” to. therein referred laws and ordinances opinion As I am of the that Art this, plaintiff’s to be Because of it seems supra, apply does not to a measure like is an position that here, plaintiff’s argument the one involved *7 purview of “amendatory within the law” Proposition III, presents under its no 5, 57, agree. It supra. I do not Art. ground for reversal. new, 24, original, is a that obvious S.J.R. claim, Proposition Plaintiff’s under its Act, complete in itself. It independent or IV, 57, 24, V, that Art. violates amendatory have the form of an S.J.R. does not wording is based on the of its title. Plain- court, opinions this Act. Numerous says misleading tiff in first the title is others, support following state- the many Ed- representing that the State Board of 1270, in at 5 A.L.R.2d ment the Annotation ucation, Legislature, rather than the creates 1288: points the Driver Education Fund. itself, complete “A statute in whether 70, (sec. 1210.23, supra) out that sec. 3 Tit. purports, purport, it or does not be to provides of the Resolution that the State amendatory, uniformly has been held (instead creating the Driver Ed- Board by be to invalidated the constitu- merely ap- Fund) empowered ucation requirement tional that amended acts prepared prove budget an administrative provisions full, or be re-enacted in by In- Superintendent of Public the State usually upon ground the that such re- under struction “from funds made available * * * quirement applicable is not to such a joint cases resolution ” n statute, part argument cites in this of its holding subject expressed logical; that the enough are those not be it is they that legislative a in title act limits its are the connected with and related to a provisions subject scope, single signification.’ that the of such act popular in than its title are uncon- that are broader phrase The first in the title of stitutional, Walker-Taylor v. Co. Board 24, general indicates that it relates to the County, 125 of Com’rs of Oklahoma Okl. education; subject of driver’s and while 226, 257 P. which held: one of the briefs suggests filed herein that Legislature an act of the “Where probably said title was intended to contain within section art. of the falls a semicolon “regulations” between the word Oklahoma, requiring Constitution of “creating”, recognize and I that the subject-matter the thereof be clear- that inept title gives here is it extent that title, ly expressed in and such title the impression the that the of Ed- State Board merely wholly in- relates to matters provided power ucation is with to create subj ect-matter contained cidental fund, say a yet drivers education I cannot therein, in manner discloses the no power 3, supra, gives section object and of the main vital character approve budgets Board to for the act, sought title purposes in such such not, sense, fund give does in a it a certain requirements of sec- fails meet power over, sphere control, or regula- or Constitution, tion art. tion, setting up, or, were, in as it in is therefore invalid.” “creating” fund, least at insofar as contend, substance, Defendants on Certainly financial records are concerned. discussed title, basis the considerations the Board’s alluded to in the State, Okl.Cr., provided Nelson v. body, for in the of S.J.Res. subject does disclose title of the lack, cannot “popular be said to object, purpose establishing signification” or by intendment”, “fair —that program, than logical driver education rather relationship subject to the broad relating wholly incidental to matters of driver’s education natural and court, Rupe Shaw, program. expected v. This necessity any financing 1094, 1100, 1101, Okl., 286 P.2d was re program. new foregoing, In view of the substantially principles ferring to same am opinion phrase that the second following in the discus cited defendants the title of it. does not render Casualty Co. sion of National Mutual violative of requirement sec. 57’s Briscoe, 1088, 1090: 440, 109 P.2d legislative Okl. only that a act one embrace sub- ject. “Therein said was the con- stitutional 'is satisfied if an case, plaintiff burden, In this had the general fairly act has a indi- overcoming presumption ’; cated the title that 'The accompanies correctness which judg- very general title and need not Court, ments appeal of trial courts on to this *8 specify every clause in the if statute overcoming but presumption also of of' (they) are reason- constitutionality legislative- that attaches to ably cognate general subject ex- enactments. As is obvious from the fore- pressed’ ; duplicity 'to constitute expression my vi.ews, going I do not think

(cid:127)subject, an act must embrace two or dual, discharged double, has more dissimilar and sub- discordant my opinion, burden. of' jects, no fair intendment can be the trial court should be I affirmed. there- having any legitimate considered as respectfully fore dissent. connection with or relation each HODGES,. other’; am authorized to and that ‘The state connection of relationship subjects need J., the minor my concurs in dissenting views.