ARE.] CRAWFORD COUNTY LEVEE DIST. V. CAZORT. 257 CRAWFORD COUNTY LEVEE DISTRICT V. CAZORT. 1-3687 Opinion delivered February 4, 1935. 1. STATUTES—SPECIAL SESSIONS.—The Governor's proclamation calling the Legislature into special sesiion should be' liberally construed, and every presumption will be made in favor of regularity of its action. 2. STATUTEs—SPECIAL SESSION—POWERS OF LEGISLATURE.—Where a statute of 1933 provided for redemption of lands sold to the State or to special improvement distriets except -levee and • drainage districts, a statute pased at a special session of 1934 extending the, 1933 statute to include levee and drainage districts held within the Governor's proclamation to extend the provisions of the act of 1933 "for redemption of lands sold to the State," since • the words quoted were employed merely to identify the act of 1933 according to its title which did not refer to improvement districts.
258 CRAWFORD COUNTY LEVEE DIST. v. CAZORT. [190 Appeal from Crawford Chancery Court; C. M. TV of - ford, Chancellor ; affirmed. • • Edgar Lee Matlock, E. L. Matloc,k and Rowell, Rowell & Dickey, for appellant. . . J. B. McDonough and Starbird & Starbird, ,for appellees. • . . • SMITH, J. • Appellee : was- accorded the right in .the decree from which this appeal comes to redeem his lands from a sale for levee taxes due thereon pursuant to , the provisions of 8 of act No..2 of the Acts ,of the Special Session. of the 1934 General, Assembly. Acts Special Session 1934, p. 3. . The question for decision is whether this . act became a valid law, 'and the answer to that question is ,found when it is determined whether the act was authorized under the .proclamation of the Governor calling the Gen eral Assembly, into special session. The.reversal of the decree is prayed upon the ground that the act was not within . the purview of Jim proclamation, and no other question is presented for decision. , The proclamation , specifying, the purposes for which the special session was called contained ten paragrOphs, and the 10th paragraph thereof reads as follows : "10. To extend tbe provisions of act No. 2, of the Special Session of the Legislature of 1933' for redemptions of lands sold to the State". The act referred to as , act, No. 2 of the 1933 Special Session, the provisions of whiCh were to be extended, is found at page 3 of the ACts of the Special Session of 1933, and is entitled "An act to provide for the redemption of lands sold to the State for the nonpayment of taxes, to- make disposition of the proceeds derived . therefrom, and for other . purposes." The provisions of the act of tbe 1.933 Special Session are broader than its title indicates ' . Section S-, A ' of that act provides: "That all real estate which has heretofore [been] sold to any special improvement district created under the laws of this State, -except levee and drainage districts, for the nonpayment of installments of the assessed benefits levied thereon, may be redeemed from such sale at any time within three years from the date of
ARK.] CRAWFORD COIFiTY .LEVEE DIST. V. CAZORT: 959 the paSsage of . this act; by any 'person, firm or corpOration noW entitled by law to redeem same, by paying the ammint of the tax and costs of sale without interest and penalty assessed for 'delinquency:" • Section 8 . of act No. 2 of the- 1934 Special' Ses.sion tends for a period of three years after • the passage .of that act this •light of redemption from sales made for the nonpayment of the assessments of benefits . due any iinprovement district. There appears to• be . but little question that § . 8 of the , act of 1934. extends thoprovisions of § 8-A Of the act of -1933, the extension being to embrace levee and drainage districts as well as improvement districts of other . kinds: • Levee and drainage dis tricts were excluded from the provisions of the first act. They were included within the provisions of the. second 'Aet: • ' • • • ' • It is' argned that , under, th , e express language . of the
eXecutive prOclamation set out above the authority conferred Was to enact legislatinn relatin g• to the redemption of lands sold to the State; . and-. therefore did not and could 'not relate to the sale Of land's for the nOnpayment Of levee and -drainage assessthents, inasmuch .. as sales for such nonpayment are not made • to the State. We think, hOwever, that thiS constrUction of: the proclamation iS too strict and narrow, and- is -contrary to the rule to be . applied in detQrinining whether legislation is within or is without the proclamation. This 'rule has. been stated' iii -numerous cases by thi,S and other courts. Many 'of these cases are' cited-hi the annotationS to the folloWing case ' s : Long v. State., 21' Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 409 ; Stale v. Woollen, Ami. -Cas:-1915C 475; Atehison, T. & S. Fe Ry. Co. v. State; 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 27. • In one of our latest caseS, that Of Staie:Yate Roard v. State-ex. rel. AttOrney General, 186 Ark. 609,*54 S. W. (2d) 696, it was said : " The rule announced in decisions of this court, in the cases of Jones v. State, 154 Ark. 288, 242 S. W. 377, and Sims v. Weldon, 165 Ark. 18, 263 S. W. 42, is to the effect that lawmakers when convened in extraordinary session, 'may act freely within the tall
260 CRAWFORD COUNTY LEVEE DIST. V. CAZORT. [190 and legislate upon any or all of the subjects specified. or upon any part of a subject ; and every presumption will be made in favor of the regularity of its action,' and that the provisions of the Constitution in question merely require the Governor to confine legislation to particular subjects and not to restrict the details 'springing out of the subjects enumerated in the call,' and is supported by many other authorities." (Citing cases.) When this liberal rule of construction is applied, we conclUde that it was not the executive intention, as expressed in the proclamation, to limit legislation to that relating solely to the redemption of lands sold to the State. If paragraph ten had ended with the date, "1933," no question as to its meaning would have existed. It would then have read : " To extend the provisions of act No. 2 of the Special Session of the Legislature of 1933,". and, as has been stated, the act of 1934 does extend the provisions of the act of 1933 in the respect previously indicated. But following this date, "1933," appears the phrase "for redemptions of lands sold to the State." We think, however, that this phrase was employed, not as a restriction upon tbe proposed . legislation, but waS employed for the purpose of further and more fully identifying the act, the provisions of which were to be ex.- tended. It will be observed that the phrase, "for redemp-tions of lands sold to tbe State," appears in and is the principal part of the title of the act of 1933, Which was "An Act to Provide for the Redemption of Lands Sold to the State," etc. But, as has been said, the provisions of the act of 1933 are broader than the title indicates. Its provisions were not confined solely to lands sold to the State, and we conclude that the extension of its other provisions was not without or beyond the scope of the proclamation. The decree of tbe court below accords with this view, and it is therefore affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.