Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Meek

Decision Date30 April 1943
Citation294 Ky. 122
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
PartiesFidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Meek.

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court.

Bullitt & Middleton, William W. Crawford and R. Lee Blackwell for appellant.

Allen, McElwain, Dinning & Clarke for appellee.

Robert K. Cullen, amicus curiae, with L.B. Alexander, S.Y. Trimble, IV, Harry B. McCoy and Clinton M. Harbison, of counsel.

Before Gilbert Burnett, Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY STANLEY, COMMISSIONER.

Affirming.

The constitutional validity and general construction of the Kentucky Revised Statutes are before the court. These questions and one of particular interpretation are presented in a suit for a declaratory judgment relating to the statutory authority of a trustee to invest the funds of an estate in "dividend-paying securities which would be regarded by prudent business men as safe investments." The specific authority contained in the Kentucky Statutes, Section 4706 (being Chap. 53, Acts of 1936, which was an amendment and re-enactment of previous acts containing the same authority, starting with Chapter 122 of the Acts of 1891, 1892, 1893) was omitted from the Kentucky Revised Statutes, enacted in 1942, as will be developed in the course of the opinion.

As is interestingly disclosed in the "Historical Introduction" to the 1936 edition of the Kentucky Statutes, prepared by Judge Richard P. Dietzman, the State has had a number of issues of Statutes under various names or designations. See, also, KRS 447.030. Some of them have been but compilations of the acts of the legislature. Pursuant to Section 245 of the current constitution, upon its promulgation commissioners were appointed by the Governor "to revise the statute laws of the Commonwealth and prepare amendments thereto to the end that the statute laws shall conform to and effectuate this Constitution." Their work was laid before the General Assembly and a bill covering each subject of legislation was enacted separately. The first compilation of these acts in 1894 by private editors and publishers was under the style of "Kentucky Statutes" and from time to time new editions were published. These were currently adopted by the legislature with the provision that the books could be cited and referred to by their section numbers as being the law of the Commonwealth. It has also been provided that the effect of the adoption should not be construed to render valid any invalid section or part thereof or to affect any law in force and effect not included in the statutes. Chap. 154, Acts of 1928, Section 2419a-3, Kentucky Statutes. The published statutes even though adopted by the legislature, being only a compilation of the acts, were but prima facie the law and receivable in evidence in judicial proceedings as such. Commonwealth v. Owensboro, F. of R. & G.R.R. Co., 95 Ky. 60, 23 S.W. 868; Shannon v. Dean, 279 Ky. 279, 130 S. W. (2d) 812. All previous editions of the statutes are yet receivable as evidence of the statute laws in force at the time of their publication. KRS 447.030.

In 1936 the legislature "directed, authorized and empowered" the Governor to appoint a committee, selected from a list submitted by the Board of Commissioners of the Kentucky State Bar, to be known as the Statute Committee. The lawyers then appointed and their successors named in the report to the legislature in January, 1942, infra, have served during the six years without compensation save that which comes from public service faithfully and well performed. The Committee was directed to "revise, codify, annotate and publish the Statute laws of Kentucky" or provide that it be done under contract. The act declared that the completed statutes should be received in all the courts as prima facie evidence of the statutory...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • City of Owensboro v. Noffsinger
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • June 17, 1955
    ...or to resolve an ambiguity in order to carry into effect the spirit, purpose and intent of the lawmakers. Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Meek, 294 Ky. 122, 171 S.W.2d 41. Viewing the statute in question in the light of these considerations, we think the Legislature intended that the ordin......
  • Swift v. Southeastern Greyhound Lines
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • April 30, 1943
    ...Revised Statutes, is constitutional, raised herein, have been disposed of affirmatively in the case of Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co., Trustee, v. Meek, 294 Ky. 122, 171 S.W. (2d) 41. Since a reference to that opinion will give our reasons for those rulings, it is unnecessary to discuss furt......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT