
    Blue v. Everett, as Treasurer.
    
      Bill to Enjoin Treasurer of Coffee County from Faying Judge’s and Solicitor’s Salary out of Public Funds.
    
    (Decided Nov. 17, 1906.
    40 So. Rep. 203.)
    1. Statutes; Constitutionality of; Title; Subjécts Embraced. — The ast amendatory of an act approved Feb. 8, 1901, (L. Acts, 1903, p. 398) does not embrace two distinct and independent subjects, but relates to the same subject and is not violative of section 45 of the constitution of 1901
    2. ' Same; Local Abt's; Notice of Intention to Introduce. — The notice of intention to1 introduce the local act amendatory of an act approved Feb. 8th, 1901, (L.'Acts 1903, p. 398) was sufficient, and not violative of section 106 of constitution of 1901.
    
      Appeal from Coffee Chancery Court.
    Heard, before Hon. W. L. Barks.
    J. D. Blue filed his bill as a citizen and tax payer of Coffee county seeking to restrain the treasurer of said county, IV. T. Everett, from paying to J. F. Banders, out of the guneral fund of the county, his salary a.s judge of the county court and M. d, Lee, his salary as solicitor of said court. The bill alleges that the treasurer has paid the salaries of the said two officers, and as such treasurer, he would undertake- to continue to pay said salaries quarterly, as they mature, out of the general fund of the county. The bill sets up the unconstitutionalitv of the act creating the county court of Coffee county, under the authority of which the judge and solicitor hold their offices and under the authority of which the treasurer is paying them their salary out of the general funds of the-county. The chancellor dismissed the bill for want of equity on motion, and from this decree, this appeal is prosecuted.
    H. L. Martin for Appellant. —
    The -act is unconstitutional, because notice iras not given as required by section 106 of the constitution of Í901.
    Tt is unconstitutional because it contains two subjects, viz., one subject gives the county of Coffee county jurisdiction and right of appeal therefrom; and the other subject gives jurisdiction to the justices of the peace in said county-and right of appeal then from.
    This renders the act unconstitutional. — Jiallentyne v. Wiekersham, 75 Ala. 533; 119 Ala. 202.
    J. F. Banders, for Appellee. —
    The original act. creating this court. (Local Acts 1900-01, p. 86Í-) was declared constitutional in the case of. 'Wilson v. Htate, 136 Ala. 1.15. The act amendatory thereof (Local Acts, 1903, p. 398) is also constitutional. Proper'’proof by affidavit was made that notice wais published of the proposed application for the pa.ssn.ge of the law, as required hv section 106, constitution 1901 . — Senate journal 1903, pp. 777-778-779; house journal 1903, p. 2360. The affidavit showing that notice had been'given is sufficient. — Dudley v. Fits pat rick, 143 Ala. 163; Childers v. hlteppard.7 142 Ala. 385.
    
      The notice itself was sufficient. — Wallace v. Board of Revenue, 140 Ala. 491; Dudley v. RitzpairicL-, 143 Ala. 162; Hooten v. Mellon, 142 Ala. 245.; Lan> v. The State, 38 So. Rep. 798; State v. Williams, 140 Ala. 10; Rxparie Black, 144 Ala. 1.
    The senate and house journals show a compliance with the mandate of the constitutional provision. — Walker v. City Council of Montgmnery, 139 Ala. 464. The act is not void as containing a duality of subject matters in the £itle. and body of the act. — Constitution 1875, 1901; TAndsey’s case, 120 Ala. 156; Bell r. State, 115 Ala. 87; Jackson r. The State, 136 Ala. 96; Tennessee M. B. L. A. case, 99 Ala. 197; Williams v. The State, 113 Ala. 59. See also Sanders v. State, 55 Ala. 42; Moore v. State, 68 Ala. 360; Smith- v. State, 103 Ala. 69; Jjomemtein v. Martin, 105. Ala. 668; Rx parte Hickey, 52 Ala. 228; Rx parte Bollard, 40 Ala.. 99. '
    J. 1). Blue cannot, it) his individual capacity, enjoin the payment of this money. — Dillon Municipal Corporation (4th Ed) pp. 1106-il09; Sheehan v. Bailey, 110 Ala. 308. No allegation authorizing the granting of an injunction is contained in the hill. — Cameron v. Abbott. 30 Ala. 416; 12 Am. & Eng. Ency. P. and P. 1045-1016.
    The motion to dismiss for the want of equity .raised all the questions decided hv the lower court. — Moog v. Randolph, 77 Ala. 597; Moody v. State, 48 Ala.. Í15; Buckley’s ease, 54 Ala. 606.
   HARALSON, J.

The constitutionality of the local act, “To amend, an act to. establish the county court of Coffee for Coffee county with criminal jurisdiction in misdemeanor cases, approved February 8, 1901,” etc. (Acts 1903, p. 398), is questioned.

Tlie grounds insisted on for the unconstitutional ity of this act are: First, that notice wa.s not. given as required by section 106 of the constitution; and second, because it contains two .subjects (to quote from appellant’s brief), “one giving the' county court of Coffee-county jurisdiction and right, of appeal therefrom, which is embraced in the title and body of the hill; and it- also gives jurisdiction to justices of the peace in said county, and also gives the right of appeal from them, which is found in the title and in the bodv of the bill.”

No reason is given in brief and argument of counsel for the first insistence. The nolice, and proof of notice are substantially the same, and quite as full, as they were in the case of tin1 establishment of an inferior court for’ Geneva county -(house journal 1903, pp. 2360, 2361), which were upheld as sufficient in Ex parte Black, 144 Ala. 1 ; 40 South. 133. and Dudley v. Fitzpatrick, 143 Ala. 162, 39 South. 385 ; Holman v. State, 144 Ala. 39 South. 646.

By the said act of 1901, above referred to, “To establish the county court for Coffee county,” by section 6' thereof, it was provided: “That said county court of Coffee shall have exclusive jurisdiction to try cases of misdemeanors in the county of Coffee.” The title tO'the act in question, among its incited purposes, contains the clause, “restoring to justices of the- peace original jurisdiction of the misdemeanor cases provided for trial by them under the code, and providing for appeals in such cases to said county court, of Coffee,” etc.

The act contains the provision, “provided further, that from and after the passage of this act justices of the peace and notaries public exercising the poAvers of justice of the peace shall have jurisdiction of all misdemeanor cases of Avhich they have jurisdiction, as provided by article 4, eh a pier 142, of the criminal code of 1896, in said county.” This act was amendatory of said original act of 1900-1901 establishing a county court, of Coffee county. It provides for appeals from justices and notaries to the county court in cases when1 they have final jurisdiction, and this related and was cognate to the title and purpose of the said original act, “To establish the countA7 court of Coffee for Coffee countAr.” Acts 1901, p. 861. *

These Avere not tAvo distinct and independent subjects, but they both related to the. same, subject, containing Avhat Ava-s necessary to make a. complete enactment for the tidal of criminal cases by said court, and to make more perfect the procedure therefor. — State v. Rogers, 107 Ala. 444, 19 South. 909, 32 L. R. A. 520 ; City Coun-cil v. N. B. & L. Association, 108 Ala. 336, 18 South. 816 ; Bell v. State, 115 Ala. 89, 22 South. 453 ; Ballentyne v. Wickersham, 75 Ala. 533.

This case is not opposed to the last cited, case, relied on for appellant. In that case, it was-properly held, that an act to define the jurisdiction of an inferior court of criminal jurisdiction for the county and to define the criminal jurisdiction of justices of the peace in the same county, contains, as expressed in the title and in the body of the act, two subjects each distinct from and independent of the other, in violation of constitutional inhibition.

There was no error in the decree- below dismissing the ' bill for want of equity.

Dowdell, Simpson, and Anderson, JJ., concur.-  