Syllabus
by the Court.
1. In
the construction of a statute, the particular inquiry is not
what is the abstract force of the words used, or what they
may comprehend, but in what sense they were intended to be
used as they are found in the act.
2.
General words do not always extend to every case which
literally falls within them, but, when the intention can be
collected from the statute itself, words may be modified
altered, or supplied so as to obviate any repugnance or
inconsistency with such intention.
3. L
county, having an indebtedness, both bonded and floating, was
by act of the territorial legislature divided, and the
segregated portion erected into the county of M. The act
provided that M. county should assume and pay its proper
proportion of all indebtedness of L. county, fixing a rule by
which such proportion should be ascertained. It further
provided that M. county should issue bonds to L. county for
its proportion of L. county's obligations which it was to
assume, which bonds should correspond in respect to time of
maturity, rate of interest, and place of payment with the
obligations of L. county. Held that, as to the floating
indebtedness of L. county represented by past-due warrants
the provisions for the issue of bonds by M. county could not
apply without involving the incongruous consequence, among
others, of issuing bonds with no term to run or future time
of payment, and that such provisions for issuing bonds by M
county did not apply to the floating indebtedness represented
by past-due warrants.
4.
Held, further, that the effect of the act was to require M.
county to assume its share of the floating indebtedness of L.
county, and, as between itself and L. county, to make payment
of the same in the usual way of paying matured indebtedness.
Appeal
from circuit court, Meade county; Charles M. Thomas, Judge.
Action
by the county of Lawrence against the county of Meade.
Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Joseph
B. Moore and Robert C. Hayes, for appellant. Thos. E. Harvey,
for respondent.
KELLAM
J.
This is
an action brought by the county of Lawrence against the
county of Meade upon the following facts, as stated in the
complaint:
That in the year 1889 Lawrence county was by act of the
territorial legislature divided, and the segregated portion
erected into the county of Meade. That the legislative act so
creating Meade county contained the following provisions:
"Sec. 13. The county of Meade organized under this act
shall assume and pay, as hereinafter provided, a just
proportion of the indebtedness of Lawrence county, from which
it is segregated, based upon the assessed valuation of said
Lawrence county for the year 1888, and upon the proportion
that the valuation within the county of Meade bears by the
said assessment of 1888 to the valuation within the whole of
Lawrence county; and it is hereby made the duty of the county
commissioners of both the counties of Meade and Lawrence to
meet together at the county seat of Lawrence county, on the
1st day of July, 1889, and at such meeting they shall
ascertain as near as may be the total outstanding
indebtedness of Lawrence county on the 1st day of July, the
date of the joint session provided for in this section, and
from the total they shall make following deduction, to wit:
(1) The amount of all sums due and payable to said Lawrence
county as rents. (2) The amount of outstanding bonds given
for public property owned by and remaining within the limits
of the county of Lawrence. (3) The amount of public funds on
hand and belonging to the county of Lawrence, on the day from
which its outstanding indebtedness is ascertained by the
joint board of county commissioners as provided for in this
section, and not belonging to the special funds hereinafter
mentioned, be the amount which the county organized under
this act shall pay proportion of, in the proportion
hereinbefore specified; and it shall be the duty of such
commissioners to ascertain and fix the amount that Meade
county shall assume and pay to Lawrence county."
"Sec. 19. The amount of indebtedness of Meade county
organized under this act, as ascertained by the two boards of
county commissioners, in compliance with the provisions of
the preceding section, shall be paid to Lawrence county in
the bonds of Meade county as hereinafter provided.
Sec. 20. Such bonds shall be dated on the 1st day of July,
1889, as provided in section 13 of this act, and shall be
issued for a period corresponding with the time or terms on
which the obligations of the original county became due and
payable and shall be payable at the same place and shall bear
the same rate of interest as the obligations of the original
county, said commissioners taking care to classify the
liquidating bonds, issuing a due proportion of each, in
proportion to each of Lawrence county's obligations
bearing different rates of interest and places of payment,
and said Lawrence county shall have
authority to exchange such bonds for an equal amount of
obligations of its own of the same class."
"Sec. 22. The board of county commissioners of Meade
county are hereby empowered and directed to issue such
liquidating bonds in denominations as may be required by the
county of Lawrence, not to exceed one thousand dollars
($1,000) each, and deliver the same to the county clerk of
said Lawrence county, who shall receipt therefor, attaching
the seal of his office to such receipts, and the county clerk
of Meade county shall enter such receipts at length upon the
records of the county commissioners and note the same in the
bond register of his county."
The
further facts, as stated in the complaint, are as follows:
"Fourth. That the board of county commissioners of Meade
county and the board of county commissioners of Lawrence
county met in joint session at the courthouse in the city of
Deadwood, in pursuance of the provisions of said section 13,
for the purpose of ascertaining the total outstanding
indebtedness of Lawrence county as it existed on the 1st day
of July, 1889, and for the purpose of ascertaining the
proportion of said indebtedness which Meade county should pay
according to the provisions of said section 13. Fifth. That
it was ascertained and determined and agreed to, by the
boards of county commissioners of the counties of Meade and
Lawrence, that the total outstanding floating indebtedness of
Lawrence county, as evidenced by the warrants of said county
outstanding on the 1st day of July, 1889, of which Meade
county agreed to pay and should pay its proportion, was
$109,442.57. Sixth. That it was ascertained and agreed by
said boards of county commissioners that the proportion of
the outstanding indebtedness of Lawrence county, which Meade
county should assume and pay as provided in the said act
creating Meade county, was 22.1122 per centum of said
indebtedness. Seventh. That the amount of the outstanding
floating indebtedness which Meade county should and did
assume and agree to pay was $24,200.10. Eighth. That the
defendant Meade county has not paid said sum, nor any part
thereof, though the same has been demanded."
From
these quotations from the complaint it will be seen that the
action is for the recovery of Meade county's proportion
of the floating indebtedness, as distinguished from its
bonded indebtedness. Meade county having answered, and the
case coming on for trial, defendant's counsel objected to
the introduction of any evidence by plaintiff, on the ground
that its complaint did not state facts constituting a cause
of action. The objection was sustained, and judgment rendered
against the plaintiff county, dismissing its complaint, and
for costs. From this judgment Lawrence county appeals.
Whether
the trial court was right or wrong in its ruling upon the
objection to the...
