Director of the Office of State Lands & Investments v. Merbanco6/6/2003
gislative and executive branches, to exchange lands without public auction remained consistent and unquestioned for over a century and resulted in the exchange of thousands of acres of school lands with the purpose of enhancing the value of the school lands as a whole. Though the legislature's interpretation of the constitution is not binding on this Court, we would "be loath to interpret the constitution otherwise." Geringer, 10 P.3d at 522; see also Coronado Oil Company v. Grieves, 603 P.2d 406, 411 (Wyo. 1979). Likewise, the executive branch's uniform interpretation that the constitution allows for exchanges without public auction deserves consideration. People eX rel. Emerson v. Shawver, 30 Wyo. 366, 222 P. 11 (1924). The attorney general's opinion supporting the executive branch's interpretation aids us and is entitled to some weight given the fact that state officials acted upon the opinion. State ex rel. Burdick v. Schnitger, 17 Wyo. 65, 96 P. 238 (1908).
The challengers do not directly address this historical context and point instead to authorities which in other factual situations have interpreted the term "disposal" as meaning "to alienate" or "transfer" and the term "exchange" to mean "sale." While these authorities are instructive, they fall short of proving beyond a reasonable doubt what the framers meant when they selected those terms. For example, Black's Law Dictionary defines "dispose of" as " o alienate or direct the ownership of property.... To exercise finally, in any manner, one's power of control over; to pass into the control of someone else; to... relinquish, part with, or get rid of;... to bargain away." Black's Law Dictionary 471 (6th ed. 1990). Yet, as Black's Law Dictionary also points out, the term "dispose of" is " ften used in restricted sense of 'sale' only, or so restricted by context." Id. In contrast to this restricted meaning and like the more general definitions contained in Black's Law Dictionary, several Wyoming cases have concluded "dispose" is a broad term signifying more than "sell." However, those cases involved entirely different factual settings and did not address the constitutional provisions in question here. J. M. Carey & Brother v. City of Casper, 66 Wyo. 437, 213 P.2d 263 (1950); State ex rel. Cross v. Board of Land Commissioners, 50 Wyo. 181, 62 P.2d 516 (1936). Interestingly, in interpreting the term "land" in Cross, this Court suggested the term could in some contexts mean everything above and below the surface as the appellant argued but would not have that same meaning in other contexts. "Reason and context play an important part in determining [a term's] true significance," this Court said. State ex rel. Cross v. Board of Land Commissioners, 50 Wyo. 181, 58 P.2d 423, 429, reh'g denied, 50 Wyo. 181, 62 P.2d 516 (1936).
The challengers further argue State v. Yellowstone Park Co., 57 Wyo. 502, 121 P.2d 170, 171 (1942), supports their position that "sale" includes exchanges because this Court stated a sale is "a contract between parties to give and to pass rights of property." That conclusion is inconsistent, however, with an earlier opinion much closer in time to the constitutional convention, Cone v. Ivinson, 4 Wyo. 203, 33 P. 31, 33 (1893), aff'd, 35 P. 933 (1894), in which this Court stated, "The usual and ordinary definition of the word 'sale' is 'the transfer of the absolute or general property in a thing for a price in money.' Benj. Sales, § 1." Certainly, that definition would exclude an exchange.
None of these authorities is very helpful in determining the intent of the framers. Certainly, "disposal" could include a sale, and an exchange could fit some definitions of "sale." However, given the situation facing
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|