Hines v. Mills

• Decision Date: 15 May 1933
• Docket Number: 4-3012
• Citation: 60 S.W.2d 181,187 Ark. 465
• Parties: HINES v. MILLS
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

60 S.W.2d 181

187 Ark. 465

HINES v. MILLS

4-3012

Supreme Court of Arkansas

May 15, 1933

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court; T. G. Parham, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cleveland Cabler, for appellant.

R. W Wilson, for appellee.

OPINION

HUMPHREYS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of Jefferson County affirming an order of the probate court of said county directing appellee, as guardian of Veota House to invest $ 994.50 of the ward's money in Cities Service common stock. The order was made by the probate court on petition of the guardian on September 9, 1930. The trust fund invested was obtained from the United States Government through the Veterans' Administration, and appellant, acting in the interest of the trust fund, through his attorney, in 1932, filed a petition in said probate court to charge appellee with the amount thus invested on the ground that the probate court was without authority to make such order. The order of the probate court was made pursuant to § 12 of act 36 of the General Assembly of 1929, known as the Uniform Veterans' Guardianship Act, which is as follows:

"Every guardian shall invest the funds of the estate in such manner or in such securities, in which the guardian has no interest, as allowed by law or approved by the court."

The language of the act is unambiguous, and, as written, has one meaning only. It says and means that a guardian may invest his ward's funds in securities "allowed by law or approved by the court." It is contended by appellant that the word "or" should be construed as meaning "and" in order to effectuate the intent of the Legislature. In other words, it is contended that the statute means and was intended to mean that a guardian might invest the trust fund in only such securities as the law allowed if and when approved by the court. It is only permissible to use the words "or" and "and" interchangeably in statutes where the context requires that it be done to effectuate the manifest intention of the Legislature or where not to do so would render the meaning ambiguous or result in an absurdity. It is not necessary to substitute the conjunctive "and" for the disjunctive "or" in the statute to prevent either a dubious meaning or an absurd one. There is nothing in the context to indicate that the Legislature intended in the enactment to use the word "and" in the place of the word "or." If the purpose of the Legislature was to authorize guardians to invest the trust fund in securities designated by it as well...