Demunbrun v. Browning
| Decision Date | 30 September 1949 |
| Parties | DEMUNBRUN v. BROWNING et al. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
T. H Demunbrun, as county attorney and a citizen, resident and taxpayer of Edmonson County, sued N.M. Browning and others as members of the county fiscal court, to enjoin issuance of county bonds to construct and furnish a county public health clinic and hospital.
From a judgment of the Circuit Court of Edmonson County, A. J Bratcher, J., dismissing the petition, plaintiff appealed.
The Court of Appeals, Rees, J., affirmed the judgment, holding that the statute authorizing county fiscal courts to provide hospitals for the care and treatment of the sick and poor was not impliedly repealed in so far as it authorized counties not containing cities of second, third, fourth or fifth classes to acquire and maintain hospitals.
T. H. Demunbrun, Brownsville, for appellant.
B. M. Vincent, Brownsville, for appellee.
At the regular November election in 1948, pursuant to an order of the fiscal court, the following question was submitted to the voters of Edmonson County: 'Shall Edmonson County, Kentucky, issue bonds to the amount of Sixty One Thousand Dollars ($61,000.00) for the purpose of constructing and furnishing a county public health clinic and hospital, in and for said county to be known as Edmonson County Clinic and Health Center.'
2,149 voters voted yes, and 209 voted no. T. H. Demunbrun, suing as county attorney of Edmonson County and as a citizen, resident and taxpayer of the County, brought this action against the members of the fiscal court to prevent the issuance of the bonds. The petition alleges that the fiscal court is without authority to issue the bonds since the obligation created thereby is prohibited by Chapter 216 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes, and is in violation of section 157 of the Kentucky Constitution. A demurrer to the petition was sustained, the petition was dismissed, and the court adjudged that 'each and all of the orders entered by the Fiscal Court, referred to in the petition are regular, legal and valid orders, and that the defendant has the full right and authority to sell the bonds referred to in the petition, that the election referred to in the petition is legal and valid, and that defendant has full right to sell the bonds referred to in the petition, and use the proceeds derived therefrom to construct a public health clinic in Edmonson County, Kentucky, and adjudges, that in doing so, the defendant does not violate any section of the Constitution, nor Chapter 216 of K.R.S. nor any other section of K.R.S.' Plaintiff has appealed.
It is first argued that Chapter 216 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes is the only authority fiscal courts have for establishing and erecting a hospital, clinic or health center; that this authority is conferred only upon fiscal courts in counties containing a second, third, fourth or fifth class city, and since Edmonson County does not have a city of any of these classes its fiscal court is without authority to construct a hospital. Section 216.010 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hardaway Management Co. v. Southerland
...no other reasonable construction." City of Eddyville v. City of Kuttawa, Ky., 343 S.W.2d 404, 406 (1961); see also Demunbrun v. Browning, 311 Ky. 71, 223 S.W.2d 372 (1949). Hardaway's argument fails for two reasons. First, KRS 207.260(2) clearly provides that the provisions of that statute ......
-
Holcomb v. Mayes
...272 Ky. 638, 114 S.W.2d 1089; Tipton v. Brown, 277 Ky. 625, 126 S.W.2d 1067. Repeal by implication is not favored. Demunbrun v. Browning, 311 Ky. 71, 223 S.W.2d 372; Benjamin v. Goff, 314 Ky. 639, 236 S.W.2d 905. Especially is this true when the statute has been given a settled meaning by a......
-
City of Eddyville v. City of Kuttawa
...repugnancy is so clear as to admit of no other reasonable construction. Logsdon v. Howard, 280 Ky. 342, 133 S.W.2d 60; Demunbrun v. Browning, 311 Ky. 71, 223 S.W.2d 372. The rule is that a general statute is not to be construed as repealing a previous particular act unless there is some exp......
-
Lincoln Bank & Trust Co. v. Queenan
...such an intention clearly appears or unless the repugnancy is so clear as to admit of no other reasonable construction. Demunbrun v. Browning, 311 Ky. 71, 223 S.W.2d 372; Benjamin v. Goff, 341 Ky. 639, 236 S.W.2d 905. The rule is that a general statute is not to be construed as repealing a ......