Dunn v. Bryan
Decision Date | 06 May 1931 |
Docket Number | 5079 |
Citation | 299 P. 253,77 Utah 604 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | DUNN v. BRYAN, County Clerk, etc |
Appeal from District Court, Third District, Tooele County; Wm. H Bramel, Judge.
Petition for writ of mandate by A. F. Dunn against Fred Bryan, County Clerk and Ex-Officio Auditor of Tooele.
County. Judgment of dismissal, and plaintiff appeals.
REVERSED AND REMANDED, WITH DIRECTIONS.
E. Le Roy Shields, of Tooele, and Woolley & Holther, of Ogden, for appellant.
C. E Baker, of Tooele, for respondent.
Plaintiff, a citizen and resident taxpayer of Tooele county, Utah, filed his petition in the district court of that county, for writ of mandate against defendant as auditor of Tooele county, to require him to publish in a newspaper of general circulation in that county a detailed financial statement of Tooele county for the year ending December 31, 1929, in compliance with Comp. Laws Utah 1917, § 1555, chapter 63, Laws of Utah 1927. The district court sustained defendant's demurrer to the petition and dismissed the action. Plaintiff appeals.
The petition sets out a copy of a pretended financial statement for the year 1929 published in a named newspaper of general circulation in the county, which the defendant claims is in full compliance with the statute, but which plaintiff says fails to meet the requirements of the law. Plaintiff alleges that he has made demand upon the defendant to publish a statement in compliance with the statute, but that he has wholly disregarded and refused to comply with such demand and threatens to continue so to do. Decision of the case calls for a construction of the statute. Section 1555 as amended is as follows:
The only change made by the amendment of 1927 is to require the statement for the previous year ending December 31st to be published in January, instead of in July for the previous year ending June 30th. In other respects the wording of the statute is the same as when first published as section 613 of the Revised Statutes of 1898.
The financial statement published by the auditor contains a more or less detailed account of the county property, resources, and receipts (as to the advertising of which no point is here made), and sets out the disbursements under headings such as:
Box rent
$ 10.80
County Clerk's office
3,785.59
Health department
970.40
County roads
There is no need to copy the entire list of disbursements, since the above are typical and furnish a fair idea of the character of the statement. Plaintiff contends that the law requires that disbursements be reported in detail, showing each warrant issued with name of payee and amount, under proper headings, except where more than one warrant has been issued to the same individual on the same account during the year the aggregate amount may be shown as one warrant, and except that amounts paid to indigents may be grouped and shown under one heading. This, he says, is the plain meaning and intent of the statute.
Defendant contends that the Legislature by subdivision 7 of section 1555, and particularly by the second proviso thereof conferred on the county auditor a discretion so that he may in the published statement, if he deems advisable, show each warrant issued, to whom and on what account, or he may in the alternative show only the totals of each account, and have on file in his office an itemized statement of such accounts for information of the diligent and interested taxpayer.
The statute clearly requires the statement to contain "each warrant issued, to whom, and on what account," except as this language is modified by the two provisos following the general language in subdivision 7. The meaning of the first proviso is plain. Its purpose is to avoid duplication of names, and directs that, where more than one warrant on the same account is issued to the same individual, the Several payments may be consolidated and published as one warrant. The name of payee and designation of the account charged are still required.
The troublesome factor is the second proviso, which is as follows:
"Provided, further, that various items paid out to individuals that are charges on the county shall not be published, but the same may be stated as a total, and the itemized statement of the same shall be on file in the auditor's office."
This, says the defendant, gives the county auditor the option of publishing the statement in the form adopted by him, showing merely the names of accounts and total disbursements under each head. He reaches the conclusion by reference to Comp. Laws Utah 1917, § 1434, which specifies in twelve subdivisions what are county charges, and includes "charges incurred against the county by virtue of any of the provisions of this title," thus indicating that "county charges" is a term so broad as to mean any and all disbursements made by a county in the regular and orderly course of its business, and suggests the phrase, "items paid out to individuals that are charges on the county," may well mean "items that are charges on the county."
We are not impressed with these conclusions, nor the argument which attempts to sustain it. In order to determine the meaning of this proviso, we must resort to the ordinary rules of construction, and, when these rules are applied, the legislative intent is reasonably clear.
"It is a cardinal rule of construction that significance and effect shall, if possible, be accorded to every section, clause, word or part of the act." 25 R. C. L. 1004.
"The several provisions of the statute should be construed together in the light of the general purpose and object of the act and so as to give effect to the main intent and purpose of the legislature as therein expressed." 25 R. C. L. 1007.
"An interpretation which defeats any of the manifest purposes of the statute cannot be accepted." 25 R. C. L. 1014.
In Crockett v. Board of Education of Carbon County School Dist., 58 Utah 303, 199 P. 158, 160, this court had under consideration section 4614, Comp. Laws Utah 1917, which requires the clerk of each county school board to publish annually a detailed financial statement. The design as well as the purpose of that statute and the one here involved are identical. The statutes differ in detail so that the decision there is not controlling here as to the meaning of the second proviso in subdivision 7 of section 1555. The defendant in that case sought to comply with the law by publishing a statement of disbursements grouped in accounts instead of in detail. This court said:
The statute section 1555, is mandatory in form, requiring that:
"The county auditor shall prepare and publish during the month of January of each year, in some newspaper having general circulation in the county, a detailed statement of the financial condition of the county...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
AGC v. Board of Oil, Gas and Mining, 20000389.
...34, ¶ 15, 24 P.3d 958; Morton Int'l, Inc. v. Auditing Div. of Utah State Tax Comm'n, 814 P.2d 581, 587 (Utah 1991); Dunn v. Bryan, 77 Utah 604, 610, 299 P. 253, 255 (1931). Indeed, the cases on which AGC relies do not even purport to construe the Mining Act's use of the terms sand, gravel, ......
-
Casa De Md., Inc. v. Trump
...mean ordinarily; that is to say, a money charge upon, or an expense to, the public for support and care."); see also Dunn v. Bryan , 77 Utah 604, 299 P. 253, 256 (1931) (finding that "public charge" has this "well-defined meaning" from Ex Parte Kichmiriantz ). And many scholars, noting thes......
-
State v. Hawker
...of the act and so as to give effect to the main intent and purpose of the legislature as therein expressed.” Dunn v. Bryan , 77 Utah 604, 299 P. 253, 254–55 (Utah 1931) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Section 76–10–1301(4) contains a list of behaviors that, under section 76......
-
Glenn v. Ferrell
...148, 99 P. 681.2 Rock v. Gustaveson Oil Co., 59 Utah 451, 204 P. 96; Coray v. Perry Irrigation Co., 50 Utah 70, 166 P. 672.3 Dunn v. Bryan, 77 Utah 604, 299 P. 253.4 Moss ex rel. State Tax Comm. v. Board of Commissioners of Salt Lake City, 1 Utah 2d 60, 261 P.2d 961.1 Vol. 9 U.C.A.1953, p. ......