Board of Revenue and Road Com'rs v. Puckett
227 Ala. 374, 149 So. 850, 1933 Ala. LEXIS 253 (1933)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legislature may appropriate public funds to an individual if the payment serves a public purpose by satisfying a moral or equitable claim based on justice and right, even if no legally enforceable claim exists. Such an appropriation is not considered an unconstitutional 'donation' prohibited by state constitutions.
Facts:
- A man named Puckett was an employee of Mobile County, Alabama.
- Mr. Puckett died while performing his duties as a county employee.
- His death occurred under circumstances where his widow, Mrs. Puckett, had no legal right or recourse to recover damages from the county.
- The Alabama Legislature passed an act to appropriate funds from the Mobile County general treasury as compensation for Mrs. Puckett.
- The Governor of Alabama vetoed the act, but the Legislature overrode the veto on July 25, 1931, enacting the law.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Puckett initiated a legal action against the Board of Revenue and Road Commissioners of Mobile County in the circuit court (trial court) to compel payment under the 1931 legislative act.
- The circuit court ruled in favor of Mrs. Puckett, upholding the act's constitutionality.
- The Board of Revenue and Road Commissioners of Mobile County (appellant) appealed the circuit court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a legislative act that appropriates county funds to compensate the widow of a county employee, who was killed while performing his duties but had no legal recourse, violate section 94 of the Alabama Constitution's prohibition against granting public funds to an individual?
Opinions:
Majority - Foster, Justice
No. The legislative act does not violate section 94 of the Constitution because it is not a prohibited donation but rather the recognition of an honorable and just claim that serves a public purpose. The court reasoned that the constitutional prohibition on donations to individuals does not prevent the government from paying claims that rest on a 'merely equitable or honorary obligation.' The legislature has the power to determine that the public good is served by making such a payment, as in compensating the widow of a public officer killed in the line of duty. This is not seen as a private gift but as the payment of a moral 'debt' growing out of 'general principles of right and justice.' The court should defer to the legislature's judgment in such matters unless it is clearly wrong.
Dissenting - Anderson, Chief Justice
Yes. The act violates section 94 of the Constitution. The act itself concedes that the beneficiary, Mrs. Puckett, had no legal claim against the county. Because no legal obligation exists, the appropriation of funds is a 'mere gift or donation,' which is expressly prohibited by the plain language of the Constitution.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of permissible legislative appropriations by creating a distinction between a prohibited 'donation' and the payment of a 'moral obligation.' It establishes that the concept of public purpose is not limited to legally enforceable debts, granting substantial deference to the legislature's judgment in identifying and satisfying claims based on equity and justice. This precedent allows governments to compensate individuals harmed in the course of public service, even without a pre-existing legal right to recovery, thereby affecting public employment policy and the use of public funds for what could be considered compassionate or restorative purposes.
