78 So. 417 | Ala. Ct. App. | 1918
There are four questions of law presented by the record and insisted on in brief of appellant's counsel: (1) Is the board of revenue of Monroe county, Ala., a duly and legally constituted body? (2) Has the board of revenue of Monroe county jurisdiction over the public roads and bridges of the county? (3) Is the license tax levied by said board of revenue on vehicles in violation of section 211 of the Constitution? (4) Has the board of revenue of Monroe county authority to levy a license tax on vehicles used by the owner for his personal use and not for hire?
1. The act creating the board of revenue of Monroe county (Local Acts 1915, p. 394) was initiated by the publication of a notice in a paper published in said county on the 7th day of January, 1915, and continuing for more than 30 days before the introduction of the bill in the Legislature. This notice was as follows:
"Notice is hereby given that a bill will be introduced in the Legislature of Alabama, at the present session thereof, which convened on January 12, 1915, in substance as follows:
In February, 1915, at the same session of the Legislature, a bill based on this notice was introduced and by approval became a law on September 25, 1915, at the same session in which it had its origin. The preliminary requirements of the Constitution having been complied with, and the notice being sufficiently broad to cover the enactments, the act is valid. Hudgens v. State,
2. It is contended by the appellant, however, that the act creating the board of revenue is void, in so far as it undertakes to confer jurisdiction over the highways and bridges of Monroe county, for that this jurisdiction had already been conferred on another board called the "Highway Commission," by virtue of an act of the Legislature of 1915, which act was approved February 24, 1915, after proper notice, etc. (Local Acts 1915, p. 104), and that the notice of the act to create the board of revenue of Monroe county was not broad enough by its terms to cover an intention to repeal the act creating the board of highway commissioners. It may be conceded that, standing alone, either of these acts would be valid, but both having been enacted into law and being repugnant one to the other, one or the other of them must fall. If the act creating the board of revenue is void, it would be because of a failure to comply with the constitutional requirements as to notice, and if the act creating the highway commission is not the law, it would be because of its having been repealed by the act creating the board of revenue. Notices of local acts proposed must be such as to advise the local public of the substantial characteristics and essential provisions of their most important features, and, when this is done, within this scope the Legislature may work out the details unhampered. State v. Williams,
3 and 4. The questions as to the third and fourth contentions made by appellant have already been answered adversely to him in the cases of Hudgens v. State, supra; Windham v. State, ante, p. 383,
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.