Opinion

Idaho Gold Dredging Co. v. Balderston

  • 58 Idaho 692
  • 78 P.2d 105
  • 1938 Ida. LEXIS 14
Court
Idaho Supreme Court
Filed
Jan 25, 1938
Status
Published
Author
Givens
On the bench
Givens, Holden, Morgan, Ailshie
Cited by
38 cases
Authority
More cited than 38.2%

"The object of the title is to give a general statement of the subject matter, and such a general statement will be sufficient to include all provisions of the act having a reasonable connection with the subject mentioned and a reasonable tendency to accomplish the purpose of the act.”

How later courts described this case

  • "The object of the title is to give a general statement of the subject matter, and such a general statement will be sufficient to include all provisions of the act having a reasonable connection with the subject mentioned and a reasonable tendency to accomplish the purpose of the act.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

on rehearing.

GIVENS, J.-

Appellant applied for a rehearing which was granted in part.

If we understand correctly, counsel for appellant urges that their argument adverted to in our previous opinion that it would be unconstitutional to construe the statute

*730

as permitting taxation of lode mining and not placer mining, applied only if the tax be considered as a property tax', but that as an occupation tax such classification would not offend, further citing

(State Bd. of Tax Commrs. v. Jackson,

283 U. S. 527 , 51 Sup. Ct. 540, 75 L. ed. 1248, 73 A. L. R. 1464, 75 A. L. R. 1536;

Metropolitan Gas. Ins. Co. v. Brownell,

294 U. S. 580 , 55 Sup. Ct. 538, 79 L. ed. 1070;

J. C. Penney Co. v. Diefendorf,

54 Ida. 374, 386 , 32 Pac. (2d) 784 ;

Diefendorf v. Gallet,

51 Ida. 619 , 10 Pac. (2d) 307 ;

United Pacific Ins. Co. v. Bakes,

57 Ida. 537 , 67 Pac. (2d) 1024 ).

Counsel urges that the decisive point is not classification but that the statute does not by its terms include placer mining. We of course recognize and admit there are many differences between lode and placer mining, and have carefully reexamined this issue and counsel’s authorities, but adhere to our former views that the legislature by the terms of the statute under consideration, intended to and did make it apply to both lode and placer mining.

The former opinion is therefore reaffirmed.

Holden, C. J., and Morgan, and Ailshie, JJ., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.