Jacoby v. Missouri Valley Drainage Dist. of Holt County
| Decision Date | 28 July 1942 |
| Docket Number | 36877 |
| Citation | 163 S.W.2d 930,349 Mo. 818 |
| Parties | Clark E. Jacoby, Appellant, v. Missouri Valley Drainage District of Holt County, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation; Charles E. Sentney, Frank Walker, A. B. Caton, George H. Allabac and Harry Morris, Supervisors, constituting the Board of Supervisors of said District, and Kate Green, Treasurer of Holt County, Missouri, and Fred Cottier, Collector of Holt County, Missouri |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Reported at 349 Mo. 818 at 832.
Original Opinion of March 10, 1942, Reported at 349 Mo. 818. [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
On Motion for Rehearing.
This cause was transferred to the court en banc upon the dissent of one of the judges of Division II, where it had been heard and determined. Upon reargument in banc the divisional opinion was adopted, in consequence of which certain contentions not made in division, but appearing for the first time in respondents' supplemental brief in banc, were not expressly ruled. This omission constitutes the basis of the motion for re-hearing filed by the drainage district.
The matter of first insistence is that the construction given the several sections of the sewer district act in State ex rel. Hotchkiss v. Lemay Sewer District, supra, (decided in 1936) is binding on us in construing the sections of the drainage act in question, because, it is said, such construction has become a part of the latter sections, the Legislature having allowed them to remain in force since said decision. It is true three legislative sessions have passed (one a revision session), and the Legislature has not amended or changed the drainage act sections. The rule of statutory construction invoked is "where a court of last resort construes a statute and that statute is afterwards re-enaced, or continued in force, without any change in its terms, it is presumed that the Legislature adopted the construction given to it by the court." [Handlin v. Morgan County, 57 Mo. 114.] It is a well-settled rule with which we have no quarrel. Under it, this court has on several occasions declined to re-examine earlier constructions of statutes, of which Handlin v. Morgan County, supra, cited and relied on by the district, is an example. In that case nineteen years had elapsed before the previous decision was called in question. And in Ex parte Carey, 306 Mo. 287, 267 S.W. 806, likewise relied on by the district, the legislative acquiescence had been over a period of thirty years. [See, also, Schawacker v. McLaughlin, 139 Mo. 339, 40 S.W. 935; Easton v. Courtwright, 84 Mo. 27; State ex inf. Gentry v. Meeker, 317 Mo. 719, 296 S.W. 411; State ex rel. Steed v. Nolte, 345 Mo. 1103, 138 S.W.2d 1016.] We think the rule not applicable, if for no other reason than that the statutes construed in the Hotchkiss case, supra, stood repealed (with a saving clause) at the very time of that decision; hence there was no occasion for further legislative concern over, or action on its part with respect to the construction given said sections.
Respondent has cited no cases, nor have we been able to find any, extending the effect of this rule to the mere continuation, without change in terms, of an earlier enacted analogous statute. Moreover, until the opinion in this case was adopted, this court has not held that the drainage and sewer district acts were so closely analogous as to require the same interpretation, so that it cannot be said that the "public and official construction of the statute was widely known," thus bringing it within Schawacker v. McLaughlin, supra.
The services in question had been performed, and the warrants issued long prior to the Hotchkiss decision. The Kansas City Court of Appeals in Macon County Levee District v. Goodson, 224 Mo.App. 131, 22 S.W. 651, (decided in 1929) construed practically identical sections of the levee district act as authorizing the additional levy; the court, in an opinion by Commissioner Barnett, after reciting the substance of the sections, saying, "The statutory authority to levy the additional tax is quite plain." The Kansas City Court of Appeals is a court of last resort, and, acting within its jurisdiction and not in violation of our decisions, it determines litigated issues as its judgment dictates with as great freedom as this court. That it has jurisdiction to construe statutes will not be doubted. [Mellon v. Stockton et al., 326 Mo. 129, 30 S.W.2d 974; Kribs v. United Order of Foresters (Mo.), 222 S.W. 1005.] Three legislative sessions intervened between the date of the decision in the Macon County case and the time of the adoption of the Hotchkiss case, so that, if the district is correct in its contention, then it would seem to follow that this court was without authority to overrule the Macon County case, and give the analogous sewer district statutes a different construction, and the Hotchkiss case should be overruled for that reason, if for no other. But our decision does not rest on this ground, as pointed out above.
Defendant says we "overlooked the history of drainage legislation in this state, and particularly Sec. 5519, R. S. '09, as amended by Laws 1911, p. 213, which conclusively shows that Sec. 10759, R. S. '29, was not intended to authorize a benefit tax to pay preliminary costs, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Heppe v. Zilafro
...206 S.W.2d 496 The State of Missouri, at the Relation of M. D. Heppe, Respondent, v ... 35 of Mississippi County, Missouri, Appellants No. 40232Supreme Court of ... v ... Consolidated School Dist. No. 1, 277 Mo. 458, 468(I), 209 ... S.W. 938, ... Mo. 44, 50, 100 S.W.2d 868, 871[3]; Jacoby v. Missouri ... Val. Drain. Dist., 349 Mo. 818, ... ...