City of Conway v. Summers

• Decision Date: 26 March 1928
• Docket Number: (No. 319.)
• Citation: 4 S.W.2d 19
• Parties: CITY OF CONWAY v. SUMMERS, Sheriff and Collector.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

4 S.W.2d 19

CITY OF CONWAY v. SUMMERS, Sheriff and Collector.

(No. 319.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 26, 1928.

Appeal from Faulkner Chancery Court; W. E. Atkinson, Chancellor.

Suit by the City of Conway against one Summers, Sheriff and Collector of Faulkner County. Decree for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Geo. F. Hartje, of Conway, for appellant.

Guy E. Williams, of Lonoke, for appellee.

MEHAFFY, J.

The appellant, a city of the second class in Faulkner county, Ark., brought this suit against the appellee, the sheriff and collector of Faulkner county, and alleged, among other things, that the appellee had in his possession the sum of $6,000, collected within the corporate limits of Conway, and that the city of Conway was entitled to 50 per cent. of the amount.

The defendant filed a demurrer on the ground that, by virtue of the provisions of Special Act of 1911 and 1919, the provisions of Act 81 of 1927 did not apply to the city of Conway in Faulkner county in so far as the provision of the three-mill road tax is concerned; and, second, that, under the provisions of Act 81 of 1927, the 50 per cent. division did not apply to and affect the division of the said road tax levied and collected by the defendant for the year 1927.

Act No. 361 of Acts of 1911 is a special act, and is entitled, "An act to better provide for the working of public roads in cities and towns in Faulkner county," and to that end provided for the expenditure of not less than one-third of the road tax collected in any such city or town on the roads situated in such city or town.

Section 1 of the act provides that not less than one-third of the tax collected on property located in any city or incorporated town in Faulkner county, Ark., under the provisions of an act of the General Assembly of Arkansas, approved May 8, 1899 (Acts 1899, p. 347), entitled, "An act to provide for levying a road tax for working roads and highways, repairing and building bridges, and for other purposes," shall be expended in working and making public roads and buildings and repairing public bridges located within said city or town, respectively. And it shall be the duty of the county court of said county, upon the examination and approval of the annual report and settlement of the tax collector to determine the amount of road tax that has been paid on property located in any city or town in said county, and to appropriate and set apart not less than one-third of the amount of said tax collected in such city or town, to be expended on the roads and bridges in such city or town."

Under the provisions of this act, the city of Conway, the appellant, would be entitled to not less than one-third of the tax collected on property located in said city.

One of the questions to be determined by this court is whether this act was repealed by Act 143 of the Sp. Acts of 1919. Act 143 is entitled, "An act to change the method of working public roads in Faulkner county, Arkansas." And section 1 provides that the county court shall have power to provide, by proper order of said court, for the expenditure of funds of the county and funds arising from the levy of the three-mill tax in said county in any road district or on any public road or bridge or culvert of said county, regardless of the district in which said tax has been or shall be paid.

While the writer does not believe that the act of 1919 repeals the act of 1911, a majority of the judges are of opinion that it does, for the reason that the act of 1911 is an act to provide for the working of public roads in cities and towns in Faulkner county, and the act of 1919, as expressed in its title, is an act to change the method of working the roads in Faulkner county, Ark., and the act of 1919 provides a complete scheme for working the roads and highways and collecting and distributing the road fund in said county. And the act of 1919 covers the entire subject of working roads in Faulkner county.

This court said, in a recent case:

"There are certain well-settled rules to determine whether or not a former statute has been repealed by a later one, but there is always some difficulty in applying these rules in determining whether or not a repeal has been effected in a given instance. It is a rule of universal application that implied repeals are not favored, and yet it is equally well settled that there is an implied repeal where there is found irreconcilable repugnance between the two statutes, and also when the Legislature appears to have taken up the whole subject anew and covered the entire ground of the...