Sanderson v. Williams

Decision Date02 February 1920
Docket Number154
Citation218 S.W. 179,142 Ark. 91
PartiesSANDERSON v. WILLIAMS
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Little River Circuit Court; James S. Steel, Judge affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

M. E Sanderson, for appellant.

Taking our statutes together (Kirby's Digest, sections 3494-5 7111, Acts 1903, page 51), the county should pay the fee. The general revenue act does not repeal the acts of February 25 and December 13, 1875. The Legislature is presumed to have known of the prior statutes and to have enacted with reference thereto. 76 Ark. 446. Repeals by implication are not favored, and a later act will not repeal a former one unless repugnant or inconsistent. 123 Ark. 184; 101 Id. 443; 41 Id. 149; 45 Id. 90.

Where there is a special act made to apply in particular cases, it only applies and not the general act. 68 Ark. 130; 131 Id. 230. These acts were passed to accomplish different purposes and their provisions are not irreconcilable or inconsistent. Both may stand and be operative. 131 Ark. 230. The court erred in declaring the law for appellee.

John D. Arbuckle, Attorney General, and Robert C. Knox, Assistant, for appellee.

The only purpose of the act of 1903 was to make the purchaser of land at tax sale responsible for the fee for executing the deed and sections 3494-5 of Kirby's Digest are inconsistent with it and repealed.

OPINION

WOOD, J.

The question for decision in this case is, whether or not the fee of $ 1 allowed the county clerk under the revenue law for making a deed to the purchaser of lands forfeited and sold for delinquent taxes is required to be paid by the purchaser at such sale.

The determination of the question involves the construction of sections 3494, 3495 and 7111 of Kirby's Digest, which are as follows:

"Section 3494. For services under the revenue laws, the county clerk shall receive for making a deed to the purchaser for lands sold at delinquent tax sales * * * $ 1."

"Section 3495. The fees provided for in section 3494 shall be paid by the county under the order and direction of the county court, except for making out the original tax books, one-half of which shall be paid by the county. * * * ."

"Section 7111. The clerk of the county court of any county in which any lands or lots are situated which have been or may hereafter be sold for taxes, under the provisions of any law of this State, is authorized and required to execute the proper deed therefor to the person entitled to receive the same whether said lot or land shall, at the time of the execution of said deed, continue to be within said county or not, in the same manner as though the said land or lot still remained within the limits thereof, any law to the contrary notwithstanding, for which he shall be entitled to charge and receive a fee of one dollar, to be paid by the person to whom the deed is made."

The history of this legislation is as follows:

An act entitled "An act to establish fees" was approved February 25, 1875. This was a general act having reference to all State and county officers who were allowed fees. Section 13 of that act provides that, "The county clerk shall receive fees for services under the revenue law * * * for making a deed to the purchaser for lands sold at delinquent tax sale $ 1." This section was digested by Judge Mansfield, under the chapter on Fees, as section 3240. It will be observed that the act as originally passed did not provide as to how the fee of $ 1 should be paid. The act was amended March 28, 1887. Acts of 1887, p. 139, and again on February 8, 1889. The original act as thus amended was digested as sections 3310 and 3311 by Sandels & Hill, and as sections 3494 and 3495 by Kirby, supra. The amendment of March 28, 1887, to the original act, as shown by section 3495, supra, provided among other things that the fee of the clerk, as prescribed in the original act, should be paid by the county.

The general revenue act of 1871, section 133, p. 107, and the general revenue act of 1873, p. 294, section 134, and the general revenue act of 1883, section 151, p. 199, all contain precisely similar provisions to that of section 7111 of Kirby's Digest, supra, except as to the amount of the fee that the clerk was allowed to charge. The last of these provisions enacted February 17, 1883, was digested as section 6631 of Sandels & Hill's Digest. On February 21, 1903, the Legislature amended section 6631 of Sandels & Hill's Digest so as to make it read as section 7111 of Kirby's Digest, supra. The last amendment, it will be observed, consisted only in adding the words, "to be paid by the person to whom the deed is made."

Mr. Sutherland in his work on Statutory Construction, volume 2, section 448, among other things, says: "It is to be inferred that a code of statutes relating to one subject was governed by one spirit and policy and was intended to be consistent and harmonious in its several parts and provisions. For the purpose of learning the intention, all statutes relating to the same subject are to be compared and, so far as still in force, brought into harmony, if possible, by interpretation, though they may not refer to each other, even after some of them have expired or been repealed."

It is a well recognized rule in the construction of statutes that where there is no express repeal by the last enactment of prior statutes it is to be presumed that no repeal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Delony v. Dillard
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • February 27, 1922
    ... ... express words to that effect, and there be in the old act ... provisions not in the new." Sanderson v ... Williams, 142 Ark. 91, 218 S.W. 179 ...          The old ... statute was a part of the act of April 12, 1869, and applied ... to ... ...
  • Creamery Package Mfg. Co. v. Wilhite
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • July 11, 1921
    ...thereby, although there may be no express words to that effect, and there be in the old act provisions not in the new." Sanderson v. Williams, 142 Ark. 95, 218 S. W. 179, and cases there We think, however, this canon of interpretation has no application to the facts of this case. The partic......
  • Creamery Package Manufacturing Co. v. Wilhite
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • July 11, 1921
    ... ... although there may be no express words to that effect, and ... there be in the old act provisions not in the new." ... Sanderson v. Williams, 142 Ark. 91, 218 ... S.W. 179, and cases cited ...          We ... think, however, this canon of interpretation has no ... ...
  • Standley v. County Board of Education
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 14, 1925
    ... ... Some of our cases ... announcing this doctrine are Hampton v ... Hickey, 88 Ark. 324, 114 S.W. 707; ... Sanderson v. Williams, 142 Ark. 91, 218 ... S.W. 179; Creamery Pkge. Mfg. Co. v ... Wilhite, 149 Ark. 576, 233 S.W. 710; Bank of ... Blytheville v. State, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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