Gasconade County v. Gordon
| Decision Date | 28 March 1912 |
| Citation | 145 S.W. 1160 |
| Parties | GASCONADE COUNTY v. GORDON, State Auditor, et al. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Laws 1911, providing for the licensing of motor vehicles, etc., by section 13, p. 331, provides that the registration fees provided for therein shall be paid into the state treasury, and shall be for the benefit of the "good roads fund." Rev. St. 1909, § 11,914 (Laws 1907, p. 416), creates "the general state road fund," and provides that all moneys accruing to the state from any general or special levy for road purposes, or from any other source whatever, or derived in any way for the improvement or construction of public roads, shall be credited to such general state road fund. Held, that the funds acquired under the motor vehicle act should be paid into the general state road fund.
3. HIGHWAYS (§ 99¼, New, vol. 14, Key No. Series)—ROAD FUND—CONSTRUCTION OF RELATED STATUTES.
Laws 1911, p. 331, § 13, provides that the registration fees provided for motor vehicles shall be paid into the state treasury for the benefit of the "good roads fund." Rev. St. 1909, § 11,914, creates the "general state road fund," and section 10,229 provides that the funds derived from the sale of stamps required to be placed on a memorandum of certain sales for future delivery shall constitute a "road fund." All of these statutes were enacted at the same term of the Legislature. Held, that the statutes were in pari materia, and should be construed together.
4. STATUTES (§ 225¼)—CONSTRUCTION—RELATED STATUTES.
The rule that statutes in pari materia should be construed together peculiarly applies to statutes passed at the same term of the Legislature.
5. HIGHWAYS (§ 99¼, New, vol. 14, Key No. Series)—ROAD FUND—REPEAL OF STATUTE—"PERMANENT OR CONTINUING IMPROVEMENTS."
Rev. St. 1909, c. 121, creates the "general state road fund," and section 11,915 requires such fund to be used in the construction of "permanent or continuing improvements, * * * and for no other purpose," and defines the words "permanent or continuing improvements" to be the surfacing of any road with gravel and rock, or with a mixture of sand and earthy material, commonly termed a "sandy clay" road, the grading of the road, and the construction of concrete or masonry culverts, and requires the plans to be approved by the county court and state highway engineer. Section 11,916 provides that the funds cannot be used by a county until it provides for half of the expense of the proposed improvement. Section 11,917 makes the taxable valuation of the counties the basis for distributing the fund, and section 11,918 provides that no part of the fund shall be used for rights of way, or damages to abutting owners. Section 10,229 provides that the funds arising from the sale of stamps required in certain cases to be used in case of future sales of goods shall constitute a "road fund" which the State Auditor shall distribute annually to the counties and in St. Louis city in the same proportion and in like manner as the state school funds are distributed. Held, that the latter statute was not inconsistent with the others, so that the funds arising from the stamp act should not be paid into the "general state road fund."
6. STATUTES (§ 159)—REPEAL—IMPLIED REPEAL—INCONSISTENT STATUTES.
A statute which is absolutely inconsistent with and repugnant to a former statute repeals it by implication.
7. STATUTES (§ 158)—REPEAL—IMPLICATION.
Repeals by implication are not favored, and both statutes will be permitted to stand if it can be done upon any reasonable construction.
8. HIGHWAYS (§ 99¼,** New, vol. 14, Key No. Series)—STATUTORY PROVISIONS — GENERAL ROAD FUND—DISTRIBUTION.
Rev. St. 1909, § 11,916, provides that the "general state road fund" shall be apportioned and distributed to the several counties when they may provide the necessary funds to pay at least one-half of the cost of the construction, or permanent improvement of roads, and that, when such half has been provided, the county courts shall make requisitions for their proportionate share of such funds, and be entitled to receive it on furnishing proper evidence of the "nature of the improvements proposed," and showing that the county has set apart the funds for paying such one-half of the cost of such construction, or improvements, provided that the state money be used only to pay the remaining one-half of any proposed improvement, or so much thereof as the proportionate part going to the county may discharge. Section 11,917 provides that the requisitions shall be made before a certain time, and "all parts of such fund not applied for by such requisitions of the counties * * * shall after two years revert to and remain in the general state road fund and be subject to apportionment and distribution as a part of such fund," and that the State Auditor shall issue a proper warrant upon being furnished with "satisfactory evidence and by the orders aforesaid" that not less than one-half of the cost "has been provided for" by the county. Held, that the "general state road fund" should not be distributed until requisitions are made by the counties, but such a distribution does not contemplate the actual payment of the fund to the counties, but only its distribution on the books of the Auditor and Treasurer, and that funds not applied for by any of the counties should after two years revert to the general state road and be distributed as a part thereof, so that a contention that such funds should be paid only to the counties which have appropriated funds from their treasury for the permanent improvement of public roads, and not to all of the counties, is untenable.
In Banc. Petition for mandamus by Gasconade County, Mo., against John P. Gordon, State Auditor, and another. Writ denied.
Clarence Baxter, W. H. Barnett, and Irwin & Peters, for relator. The Attorney General, for respondents.
The county of Gasconade, as relator, by its petition for mandamus (averring and showing a special interest in the subject-matter of the suit), seeks to compel the State Auditor and the State Treasurer to place certain funds arising from the sale of stamps under the provisions of chapter 91, Revised Statutes 1909, into what is denominated the "General State Road Fund," a fund created by section 11,914 of article 5, c. 121, Rev. Stats. 1909. Said county also seeks to compel the said respondents to place in the same fund a certain other road fund which arises from licenses upon motor vehicles. Nor is relator content with these demands, but it seeks, further, to have these funds when thus assembled paid out only to such counties of the state as may have appropriated funds from their treasury for the permanent improvement of public roads, rather than to all the counties of the state.
Respondents concede that the motor vehicle fund should go to the general state road fund, and in their return aver that it has been placed there, and that relator has received its proportionate part thereof under their construction of the provisions of article 5, c. 121, Rev. Stats. 1909. Respondents deny that the stamp act fund belongs to the general state road fund. They also say that whilst they would be glad to pay out the motor vehicle fund, now in the general state road fund, in the manner suggested in the petition of relator, yet other counties in the state are demanding their proportionate part thereof, and for that reason they ask a construction of this law by the court. It should be noted that the relator sues for itself and some 22 other counties in like situation. Relator and these other counties, in the petition named, had before July 1, 1911, appropriated funds from their respective treasuries for the permanent improvement of roads under the provisions of article 5, of chapter 121, Rev. Stats. 1909. Petitioner had appropriated $1,000 and claims to be entitled to $1,000 from this general state road fund, under the provisions of the law aforesaid. The real contentions are two in number: First, over the disposition to be made of the stamp act fund; and, second, how the general state road fund should be distributed. Both petition and return are voluminous, abounding in conclusions of law.
The facts fall within small compass, and, as the case stands before us upon a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the facts well pleaded in the return are the facts of the case. Under the facts, respondents have not put the funds arising from the sale of stamps by virtue of the provisions of law for such sale as found in chapter 91, Rev. Stats. 1909, into the general state road fund, nor have they paid out the motor vehicle fund after placing it in such general state road fund in the manner urged by relator. This sufficiently states the case for a discussion of the two or three legal questions involved.
1. The first question is, What shall be done with the money arising from the sale of stamps under the provisions of chapter 91, Revised Statutes 1909? Our statutes speak of the following road funds: (1) Good road fund—Laws of 1911, p. 331, § 13—(2) general state road fund—section 11,914, c. 121, Rev. Stats. 1909—(3) road fund—section 10,229, c. 91. Rev. Stats. 1909—and (4) the road and canal fund—article 4, c. 121, Rev. Stats. 1909. The first named is the motor vehicle fund, and the section of the law reads: "The registration fees provided for herein shall be paid by the Secretary of State into the State Treasury, and shall be for the benefit of the `good roads fund.'" The second fund is thus created by section 11,914, Rev. Stats. 1909: "There is hereby created and established in connection with the state treasury, a fund to be known as ...
To continue reading
Request your trial