Hansen v. Dakota County

• Decision Date: 06 January 1939
• Docket Number: 30451.
• Citation: 283 N.W. 217,135 Neb. 582
• Parties: HANSEN v. DAKOTA COUNTY ET AL. (LEAMER, INTERVENER).
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

283 N.W. 217

135 Neb. 582

HANSEN v. DAKOTA COUNTY ET AL. (LEAMER, INTERVENER).

No. 30451.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

January 6, 1939

Syllabus by the Court.

1. " In the construction of a statute, effect must be given, if possible, to all its several parts. No sentence clause or word should be rejected as meaningless or superfluous, if it can be avoided; but the subject of the enactment and the language employed, in its plain, ordinary and popular sense, should be taken into account, in order to determine the legislative will." Hagenbuck v Reed, 3 Neb. 17.

2. In construing a statute, it is the duty of the court to discover, if possible, the legislative intent from the language of the act and give effect thereto.

3. When the legislative intent is left in doubt by failure to clearly express it in the act, resort may be had to the title as an aid to the discovery of such intent.

4. Chapter 87, Laws 1935 (Comp.St.Supp.1937, secs. 39-2101 to 39-2112) construed and held, that such act authorizes the purchase of interstate bridges by counties designated therein, by the means and method stated in such act.

Appeal from District Court, Dakota County; Ryan, Judge.

Action for a declaratory judgment by Victor N. Hansen against Dakota County, Neb., and others to determine whether the county commissioners of Dakota County, Neb., were authorized to purchase an existing interstate bridge, wherein George W Leamer intervened. From a judgment holding that the county was without authority to purchase the bridge, the plaintiff and the defendants appeal.

Judgment reversed.

Clarence T. Spier, of Omaha, for appellant Hansen.

Malcolm R. Smith, of Dakota City, and Kenneth S. Finlayson, L. J. TePoel, Alexander McKie, Jr., and Clarence T. Spier, all of Omaha, for appellants Dakota County and others.

George W. Leamer, of South Sioux City, pro se, and W. V. Steuteville, of Sioux City, Iowa, and Joseph E. Marsh, of South Sioux City, for appellee.

Fred H. Free, of Sioux City, Iowa, amicus curiae.

Heard before SIMMONS, C. J., and ROSE, EBERLY, PAINE, CARTER, and MESSMORE, JJ.

CARTER, Justice.

This is an action for a declaratory judgment to determine whether the county commissioners of Dakota county are authorized to purchase an existing interstate bridge which spans the Missouri river between Sioux City, Iowa, and South Sioux City, Nebraska, under and by virtue of chapter 87, Laws 1935, Comp.St.Supp.1937, secs. 39-2101 to 39-2112. The trial court held that the defendant county was without authority to purchase the bridge and all defendants appeal to this court.

There is only one question of substantive law involved in this case and that is: Does the County Bridge Act of 1935 (Laws 1935, ch. 87) authorize a border county merely to build a bridge across a boundary stream or does it authorize such county to either build a bridge or purchase one already built? In view of the fact that a determination of this question is decisive of the case, we will not discuss other alleged errors assigned in the briefs.

Section 1 of the act provides in part as follows: " Any county in the state of Nebraska may build or construct or aid in the construction or complete construction of any highway, wagon, vehicle or automobile bridge within the state of Nebraska and any adjoining state across any river, navigable or non-navigable stream, forming a boundary line between any county within the state of Nebraska and any other state of the United States."

Section 2 provides in part as follows: " Any county in the state of Nebraska may issue revenue bonds to construct or to aid in the construction, or complete the construction of any highway, wagon, vehicle or automobile bridge within the State of Nebraska and any adjoining State across any river, navigable or non-navigable stream, forming a boundary line between any county within the state of Nebraska and any other State of the United States."

Section 5 states in part: " If any such county, prior to the passage of this Act, has acquired, purchased, or received an assignment by gift or otherwise, any existing highway, wagon, vehicle or automobile bridge or viaduct * * * same shall be and is hereby declared legal and valid and the property of the county and of the same force and effect as if said property had been heretofore directly acquired by the county."

Section 7 also states in part: " No election and no vote of electors shall be required upon the question of acquiring or constructing any bridges or issuing revenue bonds as authorized by this Act, for the acquisition or construction of any bridge, if the governing body of the County shall determine by vote of a majority of its members to dispense with such election or vote of electors as to such question."

It will readily be observed that section 1 of the act states that a county " may build or construct or aid in the construction or complete construction" of a bridge and that nothing is said with reference to the purchase of a bridge. It will also be observed that section 2 provides for the issuance of " revenue bonds to construct or to aid in the construction, or complete the construction" of a bridge and, as in the previous section nothing is stated with reference to the purchase of a bridge. In section 5 the statement is made that if a county " has acquired, purchased, or received an assignment by gift or otherwise," any existing bridge, the same is declared valid. This being a validating act of past transactions, it might...