Sanderson v. Williams
Decision Date | 02 February 1920 |
Docket Number | 154 |
Citation | 218 S.W. 179,142 Ark. 91 |
Parties | SANDERSON v. WILLIAMS |
Court | Arkansas 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sale responsible for the fee for executing the deed and sections 3494-5 of Kirby's Digest are inconsistent with it and repealed.
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:
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 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-
Delony v. Dillard
... ... 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
...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
... ... 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
... ... 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, ... ...