« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
the board of directors or trustees is referred commissioner. In the provisions in reference to as the chief officer of such corporation, to the commissioner of labor and chief mine but no one would contend that such officer inspector no duties are prescribed for them was the only officer of such corporation, or by the Constitution, the provision as to their that he possessed supreme power as such. duties being similar to that in the case of the Section 6, art. 7, provides for the election of insurance commissioner, thus leaving to the a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, whose Legislature to prescribe what duties shall duties are well known. Section 2, art. 6, pro- be performed by such officers. The right of vides that the supreme executive power of the Legislature to create an office and to prethe state shall be vested in a chief magis- scribe the powers and duties thereof is one trate, who shall be styled the Governor of that is not open to question in the absence of the state of Oklahoma, but the Constitution any constitutional limitation. By article 5, 8 created other officers in the executive depart. 36, it is provided: ment, and conferred upon them certain pow "Scope of Authority of the Legislature.--The ers and duties independent of the Governor,
| authority of the Legislature shall extend to all
rightful subjects of legislation, and any specific and has provided for the creation of certain
grant of authority in this Constitution, upon boards of which the Governor is a member any subject whatsoever, shall not work a rewith the same authority as any other member
striction, limitation, or exclusion of such au
thority upon the same or any other subject or of the board, as may be noted in the follow
subjects whatsoever." ing instances: Commissioners of the land of
That the creation of an office and the prefice (article 6, § 32); state board of equaliza
scribing of its duties and powers is a righttion (article 10, $ 21); state board of educa
ful subject of legislation is stated in 29 Cyc. tion (article 13, $ 5). And the Legislature in
| 1368. The office of fire marshal was created various instances has created certain boards
by chapter 46, Sess. Laws 1910–11, p. 114, and and commissions of which the Governor is a
by that act he was required to report to the member, possessing like powers and duties as
insurance commissioner, and his salary and any other member; for example: State game
expenses were to be paid out of a special tax and fish commission (section 3293, Rev. Laws
upon the gross premium receipts of fire in1910). By section 6779, Rev. Laws 1910, the
surance companies. Thus it is seen that the state treasurer, by and with the consent of
fire marshal was already an officer of the inthe Governor and Attorney General, is au
au-surance department. House Bill No. 70, thorized to select depositories of the public | which creates the insurance board, names the funds, and the three officials named are au
insurance commissioner and fire marshal as thorized to approve securities offered for such
two of its members, and provides for the apdeposits. So, by chapter 6, Sess. Laws 1907
pointment of a third member of the board, 08, p. 125, the Governor was created a mem
designated as secretary, whose duties have ber of the state banking board. The law cre- reference to insurance, and nothing else. ating the banking board, providing for insur- The board is therefore a part of their
nsurance of deposits, was under consideration by ance department, and includes in its personthe court and its validity sustained in State nel all the officers of that department as now ex rel. West v. Farmers' Nat. Bank of Cush- constituted, and the duty of executing the ing, 150 Pac. 212; Noble State Bank v. Has- laws relating to insurance is rightfully imposkell, 22 Okl. 48, 97 Pac. 590.
ed upon the board. The insurance commisHere we have constitutional and legislative sioner, as such, did not exist at the time of construction of similar terms which support the adoption of the Constitution, but the secour conclusion in the present instance. The retary of state was by section 6553, Wilson's powers and duties of the various executive Rev. & Ann. Stat., required to discharge cerofficers, with three exceptions, are defined in tain duties under then existing laws in referthe Constitution, and in the following cases ence to insurance. He was not authorized to . provision is made that additional duties may regulate rates of insurance companies, nor be prescribed by law: Article 14, creating a in the main discharge the duties imposed by banking department and placing same under House Bill No. 70 upon said insurance board. the control of the bank commissioner ; also Therefore it cannot be said that the act in section 17, art. 6, prescribing certain duties question comes within the rule of the author. to be performed by the secretary of state, ities relied upon by plaintiffs; and the said and which further provides: "He shall per- act is not unconstitutional in the respects unform such other duties as shall be prescribed der consideration. Even though the duties by law.” In article 6, § 19, creating the of- imposed upon the insurance board by House fice of state examiner and inspector, certain Bill No. 70 had been a part of the duties of the duties are prescribed, and it is then provided: superintendent of insurance at the time of “Other duties and powers may be added by the adoption of the Constitution, it was withlaw.” Article 6, 88 28, 29, creates the office in the power of the people to redistribute the of commissioner of charities and corrections, executive powers of the state government in prescribing certain duties, and by section 30 any manner they saw fit, and to confer the it is provided that the Legislature shall have duty of enforcing the laws relating to insurthe power to alter, amend, or add to the du- ance upon the insurance department, instead
done by that instrument, and previous condi- i "In declaring in the language of the title that tions existing in Oklahoma Territory, had the act was one 'to establish an insurance
| bureau,' the Legislature must be understood as they been different, could not have the effect
saying that it was made up of such provisions of preventing the exercise of such power nor and details as were deemed suitable for the obhave any weight with the court, except as ject; and under such title, and in keeping with, they may have been considered in framing
in framing and in furtherance of, the single object expressed,
it was competent to go further than to enact the Constitution.
mere organic provisions. It was certainly adThere is nothing in the provisions of article missible to include any just and pertinent regu9, $ 19, of the Constitution that prevents the lations respecting the course of action to be ob
served by the bureau as a state agency towards enactment by the Legislature of the act under
those engaged in the business of insurance; and consideration. That portion of the section it was equally admissible to include any just and cited declares that:
appropriate provisions for prescribing the duty "The commission may be vested with such ad
due to the state in the matter of taxation from
insurance companies. The fundamental prinditional powers, and charged with such other du
ciple of the law was the marking out the recipties (not inconsistent with this Constitution) as
rocal rights and duties of the state and those may be prescribed by law, in connection with
carrying on insurance, and to provide the mathe visitation, regulation, or control of corpora
chinery for administration, in so far as the state tions, or with the prescribing and enforcing of rates and charges to be observed in the conduct
by a political agency might properly supervise." of any business where the state has the right to This opinion was concurred in by Mr. Jusprescribe the rates and charges in connection tice Cooley, author of an able work on Contherewith. *
stitutional Limitations. It is apparent that the power to regulate In the case of State v. Matthews, 44 Mo. the rates and business of insurance was not 523, the title of an act under consideration by the provision quoted delegated to the Cor- was "An act to create an insurance departporation Commission, nor has the Legisla- ment," and in sustaining the validity of the ture, under the authority therein given to act therein involved the court said: delegate such powers, seen fit to do so, and “The act 'to create an insurance department the
lere fact that specific authority is con- | defines the duties and powers of the superinferred upon the Legislature to vest the com
tendent. It invests him with certain authority
and power necessary to enable him effectively mission with such additional powers and du
to execute and enforce the law, and make it ties does not deprive the Legislature of au subserve the object for which it was passed. thority to pass a law which is complete in it For the purpose of obtaining information and
thoroughly understanding the condition of inself, regulating the business of insurance,
surance companies, they were required to furand, in order to insure a practical operationnish him with certain statements and facts; of the law, delegating to the insurance board and a refusal to comply with that duty was administrative authority to make the neces- made a misdemeanor. Therefore, wheneve
fail to comply with or violate the provisions sary investigations, ascertain the necessary
of the said thirteenth section, they are liable facts, and prescribe such reasonable rules to be proceeded against for a misdemeanor. and regulations as may be necessary, when,
* * * So in the organization of the insuras in this case, a review of the orders of the
ance department it was necessary, in order to
carry out the act, to empower the superintendboard in this regard is provided for in the ent to do certain things; but the power would Supreme Court. Article 5, $ 36, Constitution. have been fruitless without authority to enforce  Various provisions of the act are at
| it. To say that a separate chapter must be en
acted for every provision in the framework of tacked because it is said the subjects therein a law. with a distinct title, would be almost imembraced are not included within the title. | possible and wholly ridiculous." The provisions under consideration in this The title of the act involved in Hickman v. respect all have reference to the regulation of State, 62 N. J. Law, 499, 41 Atl, 942, was "An the business of insurance and insurance com- act to provide for the incorporation and regupanies and their agents. The argument is lation of insurance companies,” and it was made that the title of the act is not sufficient held in that case that the title warranted legly broad to justify legislation of this charac-islation regulating the business in that state ter. The title of the act is as follows:
of foreign insurance companies and the pros"An act creating a state insurance board, pro- ecution of their agents for unlawfully transviding for the regulation and control of rates of acting business in their behalf. So in the premiums on insurance and to prevent discriminations therein, and the granting and revoking
case of State v. Twining, 73 N. J. Law, 683, 64 insurance agents' license and repealing all laws Atl. 1073, 1135, under an act entitled "An act or parts of laws in conflict herewith, and declar-concerning trust companies," it was held ing an emergency."
that the title was sufficiently broad to include This title is sufficient to include within its within the object of the act legislation includterms a law generally regulating the business ing not only trust companies, but also safe of insurance, insurance companies, and insur- deposit and trust companies exercising trust ance agents. In Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. powers, and any regulation deemed proper State Treas., 31 Mich. 6, the title of the act to enforce the provisions of the act by penal. was "An act to establish an insurance bu- ties or prosecution. In the case of People v. reau." In determining that the provisions of Superior Court, 100 Cal, 105, 34 Pac. 492, the the act there were within the title, the court title of the act was “The Bank Commissiongeneral in its scope to warrant legislation of the Legislature. The authorities upon this regulating the banking business and provi- point are collected in the second volume of sions for the enforcement thereof.
the Digest of United States Supreme Court The rule in this state with reference to the Reports, published by the Lawyers' Co-operatitle of an act was stated in City of Pond tive Publishing Company, under the title Creek v. Haskell, 21 Okl. 711, 97 Pac. 338, as “Corporations" (section 761). Such corporafollows:
tions must act through agents, and the pen“Under this clause of the Constitution, the ti-alties of a restrictive statute affecting them tle of a bill may be very general, and need not may fairly be visited upon their agents. specify every clause in the statute, it being suffi
Such provision is incidental to the general cient if they are all referable and cognate to
abiect expressed: and. when the subject is object of the regulation of the business of expressed in general terms, everything which is insurance, and, if this power be denied, the necessary to make a complete enactment in re- regulation becomes ineffectual. Hickman V. gard to it, or which results as a complement of las the thought contained in the general expression,
State, 62 N. J. Law, 503, 41 Atl. 942; State is included in and authorized by it."
v. Morgan, 2 S. D. 32, 48 N. W. 314; InsurSee, also. In re County Com'rs. 7th Jud. Jance Co. v. Raymond, 70 Mich. 485, 38 N. Dist., 22 Okl. 435, 98 Pac. 557; State v. W. 474. Hooker, 22 Okl. 712, 98 Pac. 964; Holcomb It was not necessary that the provision v. C., R. I. & P. R. Co. 27 Okl. 667, 112 Pac. authorizing appeal should be expressed in the 1023; Coyle v. Smith et al., 28 Okl. 121, 113 title; such provision being incidental to and Pac. 944; Binion, Sheriff, v. Okl. Gas & Elec. a necessary requisite to the regulation inCo., 28 Okl. 356. 114 Pac. 1096; Jefferson v. tended, preserving to the companies and inToomer, 28 Okl. 658, 115 Pac. 793; Rea, dividuals affected the right to a review in County Clerk, v. State, 29 Okl. 708, 119 Pac. the courts of any order, rule, or regulation 235; Leatherock v. Lawter, 147 Pac. 324 that might be prescribed by the insurance (not yet officially reported); Ex parte Ambler board. Ex parte Ambler (Cr. App.) 148 Pac. (Cr. App.) 148 Pac. 1061 (not yet officially 1061. The general scope and purpose of the reported).
act being to regulate the business of insurThe fact that penalties are imposed for ance, and the various provisions being cogviolation of the provisions of the act does nate to the subject, and properly connected not render these sections void as being with- therewith and necessary to an effectual regout the title; for it would be a natural com-ulation, such as is intended by said act, we plement to the act regulating the business of think the title thereof was sufficient to eminsurance to include any just and proper brace within its general scope the various provisions for enforcing the duties imposed provisions challenged. Section 19 is assailupon the persons and companies affected,
ed upon the theory that it is class legislaand to prescribe penalties for the violation
tion and an unjust discrimination between thereof. Plumb v. Christie, 103 Ga. 700, 30
classes of companies therein enumerated. S. E. 759, 42 L. R. A. 181; State v. Mat
This question was involved in the case of thews, supra; State v. Bernheim, 19 Mont.
German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Lewis, supra, 512. 49 Pac. 441; Gothard v. People, 32 Colo. where complainant attacked the statute of 11, 74 Pac. 890; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Kansas as discriminating against complainRaymond, Ins. Com'r, 70 Mich. 485, 38 N. W.
ant because it excluded from its provisions 474. And it is also permissible to make the
Farmers' Mutual Insurance Companies orprovisions of said act applicable to the agents
ganized and doing business under the laws of the companies affected, and requiring
of that state, and insuring only farm propobedience upon their part to said law, and
erty. In holding adversely to this contenprescribing punishment for a violation there
tion, the court said: of. It cannot be said that such provisions in
"There are special provisions in the statutes terfere with the right of contract or deprive of Kansas for the organization of co-operative the agents affected of property without due companies, and, if the statute under review disprocess of law. Corporations organized un-criminates between them, the German Alliance der the laws of other states to engage in
engage in Company cannot avail itself of the discrimina
tion. A citation of cases is not necessary, nor and carry on the business of insurance can
for the general principle that a discrimination is not carry on said business in this state with valid if not arbitrary, and arbitrary in the legisout permission from the state, express or im- | lative sense_that_is, outside of that wide dis
cretion which a Legislature may exercise. plied, nor have they any right to take risks
legislative classification may rest on narrow disor transact such business in this state with-tinctions. Legislation is addressed to evils as out first having complied with the laws of they may appear, and even degrees of evil may the state. It has been repeatedly held that determine its exercise. Ozan Lumber Co. v.
Union County Nat. Bank, 202 U. S. 623, 26 Sup. corporations of one state have no right to
rations or one state have no right to Ct. 768, 50 L. Ed. 1176. There are certainly exercise their franchises in another state differences between stock companies, such as without the consent of the state and upon complainant is, and the mutual companies desuch terms as may be imposed by the state
scribed in the bill, and a recognition of the difin which their business is carried on, not 1 tutional power of the Legislature. Orient Ins.
ferences we cannot say is outside of the constiinconsistent with the federal Constitution; Co. v. Daggs, 172 U, S. 557, 19 Sup. Ct. 281, 43 A similar classification was upheld in Citizens' Insurance Co. v. Clay et al., supra, INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA where the Kentucky state insurance rate law et al. v. WELCH, State Insurance excepted from its operation purely mutual
Com'r. (No. 7582.) or profit-sharing companies, or co-operative (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Nov. 9, 1915. companies not operating for profit, and Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1916.) church insurance companies. The objection that the section mentioned is class legisla
(Syllabus by the Court.) tion cannot be sustained.
| MANDAMUB 87-INSURANCE AGENTS-DUTY Subdivision o of section 10. which pro-1 TO ISSUE LICENSES--MANDAMUS.
Under the provisions of chapter 174, Sess. vides a penalty for any insurance company, | Laws 1915. p. 340, the duty of issuing licenses foreign or domestic, requiring any person to insurance agents is imposed upon the state as a condition precedent to his appointment insurance board, and mandamus will not be as agent or retaining an agency for said com
awarded against the insurance commissioner di
recting him to issue such license. pany to refuse or surrender the agency of any [Ed. Note.--For other cases, see Mandamus, domestic insurance company, is assailed as Cent. Dig. 88 189–194; Dec. Dig. Om 87.] being in contravention of section 2, art. 2, of the Constitution, which provides:
Error from District Court, Oklahoma Coun
ty; Edward Dewes Oldfield, Judge. "All persons have the inherent right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoy
Mandamus by the Insurance Company of ment of the gains of their own industry." North America, a corporation, and others
against A. L. Welch, Insurance CommissionAnd a portion of section 12 is also assail
er of the State of Oklahoma. Judgment for ed as being an infringement of the rights of
defendant, and plaintiffs bring error. Afan insurance agent, granted to him by said
firmed. section of the Constitution. Upon this question it is sufficient to say that plaintiff is Burwell, Crockett & Johnson, of Oklahoma not in position to raise these objections to City, for plaintiffs in error. S. P. Freeling, the sections challenged, and therefore we will Atty. Gen., and J. H. Miley and Smith C. not consider same for this reason. Rea V. Matson, Asst. Attys. Gen., for defendant in State, 29 Okl. 708, 110 Pac. 235; Robertson error. et al. v. Board of Commissioners, 14 Okl. 407, 79 Pac. 97; Stine v. Lewis, Sheriff, et
HARDY, J. This is an action by the plainal., 33 Okl. 616, 127 Pac, 396.
tiff Insurance Company of North America  Complaint is also made of the action and certain of its agents for the purpose of of the insurance board in refusing to ap
compelling A. L Welch, insurance commisprove the form of policy submitted by plain
sioner of the state of Oklahoma, to issue to tiff because same appears to be a joint pol- such agents licenses authorizing them to repicy issued by it and another company, and
resent the plaintiff company and issue polihas indorsed on the filing back thereof in cies on its behalf. The petition alleged that large letters the words "PHILADELPHIA the plaintiff had been licensed to do busiUNDERWRITERS' DEPARTMENT," and
ness in the state of Oklahoma for the year immediately following and in connection 1915, and had in all matters and things comtherewith, but in small letters, the words plied with the laws of the state and with “Of Both Companies." It does not appear the insurance department thereof, and that from the pleadings or evidence that plaintiff certain persons named in its petition and in has used or will use such form of policy an exhibit attached thereto had been appointwithout the approval of the board, and there ed by it as its agents in this state for the fore there is no cause for interference until year 1915, which list of agents had been a case shall be presented where actual re- tiled with the insurance department of the lief may be granted. Plaintiff is not entitled state and with the defendant as insurance to the relief demanded, for the additional commissioner; that the necessary fees had reason that, the act conferring authority up been tendered, setting forth compliance with on the insurance board to act in the prem- all of the provisions of the law in reference ises being yalid, and provision being made to the appointment and licensing of agents therein for an appeal to this court, the plain- on behalf of plaintiff and its agents; that it tiff is not entitled to resort to a court of had requested the defendant, as insurance equity for injunctive relief, but must pursue commissioner, to issue said licenses, which the remedy provided by the statute, which he had refused to do. in this case appears to us to be plain, speedy, Upon filing the petition an alternative writ and adequate. Ellis v. Akers et al., 32 Okl. of mandamus was issued and served upon 96, 121 Pac. 258; Harris et al. v. Smiley, 36 the defendant, who within due time filed his Okl. 89, 128 Pac. 276.
answer and return, justifying himself under For the foregoing reasons, the order of the provisions of House Bill No. 70, contendthe trial court denying the temporary in- ing that, under said law, the authority and junction is affirmed. All the Justices con- power to issue licenses to agents of insurance cur.
companies was vested in the state insurance
board, and that defendant had no authority , physician acts in an administrative, and not a under said law to do so.
Ljudicial, capacity, and the same strictness in At the trial it was admitted that defend-P
na | pleadings and practice is not required before
it as before a judicial tribunal. It is sufficient ant, Welch, had refused to issue the licenses if the accused is informed by the complaint of to the agents named, and at the close of the the wrong charged against him and the particutrial judgment was rendered for the defend
lar instances of its perpetration charged, and
has an opportunity to defend against proof of ant. Motion for new trial filed and overruled,
y such charges, and the proceedings are free from and exceptions saved, and plaintiffs bring er- prejudice, fraud, or oppression. ror.
n- [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Physicians trolled by the decision in Insurance Co. of and Surgeons, Cent, Dig. $ 15; Dec. Dig. North America et al. v. Welch, Insurance
www11.] Commissioner, et al. (No. 7581) 154 Pac. 48, 5. PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS C11-PROthis day decided.
CEEDINGS TO REVOKE LICENSE-EVIDENCE
ADVERTISEMENT, By the provisions of chapter 174, Sess.
An advertisement published by a physician Laws 1915, p. 340, the power and duty to honetan
p Laws 1915, p. 340. the power and duty to li-held properly admitted in evidence against him
roof obtaining a fee on the assurcense insurance agents is conferred upon the upon a charge of obtaining a fee on the assurstate insurance board; and, having deter
ance that an incurable disease can be per
manently cured by him, as tending to prove mined this act to be a valid exercise of legis- the assurance of permanent cure, where such lative authority, it follows that the defendant assurance is denied by the physician. as insurance commissioner is without author- [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Physicians ity to issue the licenses demanded by plain and Surgeons, Cent. Dig. 8 15; Dec. Dig. Om tiffs, and no duty is imposed upon him to do so, as said licenses should be issued by the 6.
6. APPEAL AND ERROR 1071 - HARMLESS
ERROR-FINDINGS OF FACT-EVIDENCE. state insurance board.
It is error for the court to make a finding The judgment of the trial court refusing of fact upon a matter upon which all evidence the writ of mandamus is therefore affirmed. was excluded, but, where the other findings of
the court are supported by the evidence, and are sufficient to sustain the judgment of the court,
such error is not so prejudicial as to warrant a FREEMAN v, STATE BOARD OF MED reversal. ICAL EXAMINERS. (No. 5854.)
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Appeal and
| Error, Cent. Dig. 88 4234-4239; Dec. Dig. Om (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Dec. 7, 1915. / 1071.1 Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1916.)
7. PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS O11--REVO(Syllabus by the Court.)
CATION OF LICENSE-SUFFICIENCY OF EVI.
DENCE-CERTIORARI. 1. PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS C11–Revo
Evidence considered, and held to sustain CATION OF LICENSE - PROCEEDINGS - PAR-the judgment of the court. TIES. The state is not a necessary party to a
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Physicians proceeding before the state board of medical
and Surgeons, Cent. Dig. 8. 15; Dec. Dig. Om examiners to revoke the license of a physician.
11.] (Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Physicians Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1. and Surgeons, Cent. Dig. § 15; Dec. Dig. Om 11.)
Error from District Court, Bryan County; 2. PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS Om 10%"UN
Jesse M. Hatchett, Judge. PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT''-"INCURABLE DIs
Certiorari by R. W. Freeman against the EASE."
State Board of Medical Examiners. Writ In the second clause of section 6905, Rev. I quashed, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed. Laws 1910, defining "unprofessional conduct" of a physician as ** *** the obtaining of Hatchett & Ferguson, of Durant, for plainany fee on the assurance that an incurable dis- tiff in error. S. P. Freeling, Atty. Gen., and ease can be permanently cured," the words "in-1 curable disease” mean any disease which has 0.
which has/C. W. King, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant reached an incurable stage in the patient af- in error, flicted therewith, according to the then general state of knowledge of the medical profession. (Ed. Note. For other cases, see Physicians
RUMMONS, O. The questions involved in and Surgeons, Cent. Dig. 8 14; Dec. Dig. Om this appeal raised in the brief of plaintiff in 10.
error necessary to be considered consist of For other definitions, see Words and Phras four propositions: First. Is the state a neces, First and Second Series, Unprofessional.]
essary party to this proceeding? Second. 3. PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS Cm 10--UNPRO
Is the clause in section 6905, Revised Laws FESSIONAL CONDUCT-VALIDITY OF STATUTE. The second clause of section 6905, Rev.
1910, defining "unprofessional" conduct of a Laws 1910, is valid, and defines an offense physician as follows: "Second. The obtainagainst professional conduct on the part of ing of any fee on the assurance that an inphysicians.
curable disease can be permanently cured"[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Physicians and Surgeons, Cent. Dig. § 14; Dec. Dig. Om
void and of no effect? Third. Whether or 10.)
not the proceedings before the state board of
medical examiners and the district court 4. PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS 11 - PROCEEDINGS TO REVOKE LICENSE-COMPLAINT.
were regular and free from prejudicial error? The state board of medical examiners in a
Fourth. Was the evidence sufficient to supproceeding before it to revoke the license of a ) port the judgment of the trial court?