Shelby County Myrtue Memorial Hospital v. Harrison County

Decision Date12 November 1957
Docket NumberNo. 49287,49287
Citation249 Iowa 146,86 N.W.2d 104
PartiesSHELBY COUNTY MYRTUE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Appellant, v. HARRISON COUNTY, Appellee.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

William O. Lewis, County Attorney, Shelby County, Harlan, for appellant.

John W. Kellogg, County Attorney, Harrison County, Missouri Valley, for appellee.

THOMPSON, Justice.

We are concerned here with the construction of certain statutes having to do with the support of the poor, and with the powers of county hospitals. Plaintiff's petition alleges its status as a county public hospital established and operating in Harlan, Shelby County, Iowa, under the provisions of Chapter 347 of the Code of 1954, I.C.A. Further allegations are that Nancy Jane Ehlers is an indigent person with a legal settlement in the defendant county; that during the year 1955 the said indigent received benefits and services in the plaintiff's hospital upon five different occasions--January 2 to 5, inclusive; February 22 to 27, inclusive; April 30 to June 27, inclusive; August 20 to September 1, inclusive; and September 14 to October 2, inclusive.

The petition further pleads that the defendant paid the bills incurred for the first, second, and fourth periods, but has refused to pay those for the third and fifth, and that there is due and unpaid from the defendant the total sum of $1,195.85, which is the reasonable cost of the care, treatment and hospitalization furnished the said Nancy Jane Ehlers, and that this is a liability created by Section 347.16 of the Code, I.C.A. Judgment for the above sum, with interest and costs, is prayed.

Defendant moved to dismiss the petition 'on the grounds that it fails to state a cause of action in that there is no allegation that notice was served on the Auditor of Harrison County, Iowa, as provided by Section 252.22 of the 1954 Code of Iowa [I.C.A.].' This motion was sustained by the trial court, which quoted from Section 252.22: 'All laws relating to the support of the poor, provided by this chapter, shall be applicable to care, treatment and hospitalization provided by county public hospitals'. The court then said that the claim of the plaintiff is the claim of a county public hospital, and that the notice required by Section 252.22 had not been served and the service of said notice is a prerequisite to an action to collect for such hospitalization. Plaintiff did not elect to plead over, but appealed to this court from the judgment of dismissal.

I. The controversy here involves the construction to be placed upon two statutes. It is the major contention of the plaintiff that it has the right to bring its action, without service of the notice upon the county auditor of the county of settlement, by virtue of Section 347.16, particularly that part of it which says: 'Provided, however, such county public hospital may provide hospital benefits to indigent persons having a legal settlement outside the county and the county of such persons' legal settlement shall pay to such county public hospital for the fair and reasonable cost of such care, treatment, and hospitalization.' (Italics supplied.)

We have, therefore, Section 252.22, a part of Chapter 252 relating to the support of the poor, and Section 347.16, defining the powers and duties of county public hospitals, which must be reconciled; or, that failing, we must determine which expresses the true legislative intent. The defendant relies upon Chapter 252, particularly Section 252.22; the plaintiff upon Section 347.16 of Chapter 347. Chapter 252 defines who are poor persons; how settlements are acquired in counties; provides liabilities against certain relatives of such indigents; imposes certain duties upon township trustees and other local officers; contains the stern provisions of our law for giving notice to depart from a county to persons thought to be likely to become county charges, for the purpose of preventing them obtaining a legal settlement in the warning county; and, most important here, provides in Section 252.22 that if relief is granted to a poor person having a settlement in another county, the auditor of the granting county shall at once notify by mail the auditor of the county of settlement of such grant. It is the failure of the plaintiff's petition to allege the giving of such notice which the defendant and the trial court hold make a fatal defect and show that no cause of action is pleaded.

Prior to 1947, Section 252.22 made provision for the notice as referred to last above, but did not have the clause which the trial court quoted and relied upon, as set out above, purporting to make all laws for the support of the poor provided by Chapter 252 applicable to county public hospitals. Nor did Chapter 347, relating to county public hospitals, contain the provision permitting such hospitals to care for indigents with settlements in other counties and requiring such counties to pay the hospital therefor. Before this time, county public hopitals were not authorized to care for poor persons with settlements in other counties.

Oddly enough, the Fifty-second General Assembly in 1947 amended Sections 347.16 and 252.22 by the same Act, Chapter 191 of its laws. Since these amendments and one other, to be referred to later, are vital to our determination of the issue before us, we set out Chapter 191, Acts of the Fifty-second General Assembly:

'Chapter 191. County Public Hospitals. H.F. 495.

'An Act to provide for county public hospitals to provide care of indigent persons having legal settlement outside of the county furnishing such care, and to further provide for the collection of such costs from the county wherein the patient has a legal settlement or persons legally liable for such support.

'Be It Enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Iowa:

'Section 1. Amend section three hundred forty-seven point sixteen (347.16), Code 1946, by striking the word 'only' from line ten (10) and by inserting the following after line fourteen (14) thereof: 'Provided, however, such county public hospital may provide hospital benefits to indigent persons having a legal settlement outside the county and the county of such persons' legal settlement shall pay to such county public hospital for the fair and reasonable cost of such care, treatment, and hospitalization.'

'Sec. 2. Amend section two hundred fifty-two point twenty-two (252.22), Code 1946, by adding thereto the following: 'All laws relating to the support of the poor as provided by this chapter shall be applicable to care, treatment, and hospitalization provided by county public hospitals.'

'Approved April 22, 1947.'

It will be noted that in the same act the legislature added the amendments to Sections 347.16 and 252.22 which form the substantial basis for the controvery here. To the previous powers of County hospitals it added that of caring for indigents from other counties; and to Section 252.22 the provision that all acts relating to the support of the poor are applicable to county hospitals. These provisions have since appeared in the Codes of 1950 and 1954, I.C.A. The two cannot be wholly reconciled. It will be noted that when indigents having settlements in other counties are cared for by the county hospital, the settlement county 'shall pay to such county public hospital for the fair and reasonable cost of such care, treatment, and hospitalization.' The laws relating to the support of the poor as set out in Chapter 252 all contemplate, when aid is furnished by an agency to a non-resident indigent, that '* * * such relief shall be deemed to have been furnished by the county in which such agency is located * * *'; Code Section 252.24, I.C.A. This makes the county where the relief is furnished the creditor and the county of settlement the debtor. The furnishing county must give the prescribed notice and collect from the county of settlement. This would be the necessary procedure if the amendment making all care furnished by a county public hospital subject to the general provisions of Chapter 252 in all respects is to be taken literally. But the amendment to Section 347.16 says the county of settlement shall pay to the hospital, rather than to the county. The two amendments were not only enacted at the same time by the same legislature, but in the same chapter.

Another amendment to Section 347.16 was enacted by the Fifty-fifth General Assembly in 1953. The act made certain provisions for the care of tubercular persons; then for the care of resident indigents, and for the method of determining whether they are in fact indigent. Next it is provided that the cost of such care shall be the liability of the county, and upon proper claim therefor shall be paid as provided by Section 252.35. Following is this: 'Provided, however, such county public hospital may provide hospital benefits to indigent persons having a legal settlement outside the county and the county of such persons' legal settlement shall pay to such county public hospital for the fair and reasonable cost of such care, treatment, and hospitalization.'

It will be observed that the language last quoted from Chapter 156, Acts of the Fifty-fifth G.A., is identical with Section 1, Chapter 191, Acts of the Fifty-second G.A., which had been a part of the law of Iowa for some six years. It amounted to a reenactment of the existing law; and while we may not be certain of its purpose, it is clear that it does add emphasis and that it gives some later expression of the legislative intent.

II. However, we need not analyze the extent to which the re-enactment of Section 1, Chapter 191, supra, as a part of Chapter 156, supra, makes it a later ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Warren v. Iowa State Highway Commission
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 18 Noviembre 1958
    ...by Chapter 306. Special statutes take precedence over general ones, when they cannot be reconciled. Shelby County Myrtue Memorial Hospital v. Harrison County, Iowa, 86 N.W.2d 104, 109; Crawford v. Iowa State Highway Commission, 247 Iowa 736, 739, 740, 76 N.W.2d 187, 189; Iowa Mutual Tornado......
  • United States v. West View Grain Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 2 Diciembre 1960
    ...matter that statute will prevail over a general statute dealing with the same subject matter. Shelby County Myrtue Memorial Hospital v. Harrison County, 1957, 249 Iowa 146, 86 N.W.2d 104, 108; Liberty Consolidated School District v. Schindler, 1955, 246 Iowa 1060, 70 N.W.2d 544, 547; Iowa M......
  • State v. Flack
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 8 Marzo 1960
    ...in point in principle; Warren v. Iowa State Highway Comm., 250 Iowa 473, 93 N.W.2d 60, 64; Shelby County Myrtue Memorial Hospital v. Harrison County, 249 Iowa 146, 152-153, 86 N.W.2d 104, 108-109, and citations, where the conflicting provisions were in the same amendatory act; Grant v. Norr......
  • Ashby v. School Tp. of Liberty, in Lucas County, 49748
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 20 Octubre 1959
    ...means." Lever Brothers Co. v. Erbe, 249 Iowa 454, 469, 87 N.W.2d 469, 479, and citations; Shelby County Myrtue Memorial Hospital v. Harrison County, 249 Iowa 146, 151, 86 N.W.2d 104, 108, and citations. See also Wall v. County Board of Education, 249 Iowa 209, 218, 86 N.W.2d 231, 236-237; C......
  • 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