Dreps v. Board of Regents of the University

139 P.2d 467, 65 Idaho 88, 1943 Ida. LEXIS 51
CourtIdaho Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 7, 1943
DocketNo. 7094.
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 139 P.2d 467 (Dreps v. Board of Regents of the University) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dreps v. Board of Regents of the University, 139 P.2d 467, 65 Idaho 88, 1943 Ida. LEXIS 51 (Idaho 1943).

Opinions

This appeal involves the powers and duties of the "Regents of the University of Idaho."

November 1, 1940, respondent was appointed by the board, then consisting of A.L. Swim, Mrs. A.A. Steel, W.C. Geddes, W.F. McNaughton, and J.H. Andersen, as nurse in the university infirmary, at the agreed salary of $90 per month, per year of ten months. By resolution entered April 26, 1941, respondent was reappointed by the board at the same salary for another year. At the time of her reappointment, the board was composed of the same personnel as above named with the exception that J.F. Jenny was serving instead of W.C. Geddes, whose term had expired. Respondent is a niece of the wife of Regent Jenny. Sometime after respondent's reappointment, the board declined to pay her salary, on the grounds that her employment was in violation of the Nepotism Act, sec. 57-701, I.C.A. This action was instituted against the Board of Regents, to recover the salary earned by respondent under her appointment.

This appeal involves two questions: (a) Does the Nepotism Act apply to the Board of Regents of the University of Idaho? And (b) If it was intended to so apply, did the legislature have the power to make it applicable to the Board of Regents of the University of Idaho?

If the legislature had no power to extend the Nepotism Act to the Board of Regents, then of course it will be unnecessary to further consider the matter as to whether the legislature so intended by the passage of this act. In order to determine the power of the legislature to apply the Nepotism Act (sec.57-701, supra) to the Board of Regents, it becomes necessary to consider the manner of creation of the Board of Regents and the powers, authority, and privileges conferred upon the board as the governing body of the University of Idaho.

The University of Idaho was established by act of the *Page 90 territorial legislature approved January 30, 1889, which act, for convenience, is set out in full in the footnote hereto.1 *Page 91

It will be seen from an examination of the act, that the territorial legislature created and established a state educational institution and located it at Moscow in Latah County, *Page 92 Idaho, and declared that it should be named and styled "The University of Idaho" (sec. 1.). It further provided: "The government of the University shall vest in a Board *Page 93 of Regents" (sec. 2). It further provided that, "The Board of Regents and their successors in office, shall constitute abody corporate, by the name of 'The Regents of the University *Page 94 of Idaho' ". It will be further noted (sec. 3) that the board and their successors in office "constitute a body corporate"; and that they are given "the custody of the books, records, buildings and other property" of the university and power to employ (sec. 5) "a president and the requisite number of professors, instructors, officers and employees (Hyslop v.Board of Regents, 23 Idaho 341, 129 P. 1073) and fix the salaries and the term of office of each." They are further authorized to "enact laws for the government of the university in all its branches"; it also provides for the creation of "colleges or departments" (sec. 9) in the different branches of knowledge and learning.

Following the creation and organization of the university, the constitutional convention met in August, 1889, drafted and submitted to the people a constitution which was ratified and approved November 5, 1889, in and by the terms of which the "University of Idaho" was recognized as a separate and independent educational institution of the new state to be. Article 9 of the constitution was devoted to the subject of "Education and School Lands." Sec. 10 of that article provides:

"The location of the University of Idaho, as established by existing laws, is hereby confirmed. All the rights, immunities, franchises, and endowments, heretofore granted thereto by the territory of Idaho are hereby perpetuated unto the said university. The regents shall have the general supervision of the university, and the control and direction of all the funds of, and appropriations to, the university, under *Page 95 such regulations as may be prescribed by law. No university lands shall be sold for less than ten dollars per acre, and in subdivisions not to exceed one hundred and sixty acres, to any one person, company or corporation."

The foregoing provision of the constitution, ratified and approved by the people of the state, definitely fixed the location of the University of Idaho as established by existing laws and then provided:

"All the rights, immunities, franchises, and endowmentsheretofore granted thereto by the territory of Idaho are herebyperpetuated unto the said university."

By this provision, the territorial act, creating the university and prescribing the powers, duties and authority of the Board of Regents, was written into the constitutional corporate charter of the university as fully as if it had been set out at length in the constitution. (Wright v. Callahan,61 Idaho 167, 99 P.2d 961.) Its rights, immunities, franchises and endowments were placed definitely and permanently beyond the power of the legislature to disturb, limit or interfere with them.

It is contended, however, that the following sentence confers certain law-making power on the legislature: "The regents shall have the general supervision of the university, and the control and direction of all the funds of, and appropriations to, the university, under such regulations as may be prescribed bylaw." (Italics supplied.) It is not believed that the framers of the constitution meant any such thing by using the words, "under such regulations as may be prescribed by law," for the reason that to give this clause such a construction would contradict and repudiate the terms of the preceding sentence and likewise impair the authority conferred by the territorial act, which was made a part of the constitutional charter and declared "hereby perpetuated."

It seems reasonable and consonant with the other portions of the section (10), to believe that "such regulations as may be prescribed by law" were intended to refer only toappropriations the legislature might make to the university from time to time. This thought finds support in the answer of Mr. Sweet to an inquiry made by the president (Mr. Clagget) of the convention (vol. I, Debates, Const. Conv., pp. 766-767), to the effect that the clause "directs that all appropriations and moneys appropriated to the university shall be *Page 96 handled by the regents as prescribed by law." (See also vol. II, Debates, p. 1291.)

"Regulate" does not mean to prohibit, or destroy or change, but rather signifies "to adjust by rule, method or established mode; to direct by rule or restriction;" (Black, Law Dic.) "to reduce to order, method or uniformity." (Webster, Internatl. Dic.; Warren v. Indiana Tel Co., 26 N.E.2d 399, 217 Ind. 93;N.J. Good Humor v. Board of Commrs., 124 N.J.L. 162

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Continental Casualty Co.
829 P.2d 528 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1992)
Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Lord
257 N.W.2d 796 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1977)
University of Utah v. Board of Examiners of State
295 P.2d 348 (Utah Supreme Court, 1956)
Spence v. UTAH STATE AGR. COLLEGE
225 P.2d 18 (Utah Supreme Court, 1950)
King v. Board of Regents of the University of Nevada
200 P.2d 221 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
139 P.2d 467, 65 Idaho 88, 1943 Ida. LEXIS 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dreps-v-board-of-regents-of-the-university-idaho-1943.