State ex rel. Braatelien v. Drakeley

• Decision Date: 09 October 1913
• Docket Number: 81912
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

143 N.W. 768

26 N.D. 87

THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA UPON THE RELATION OF H. W. BRAATELIEN, as State's Attorney within and for Williams County, North Dakota, v. GEORGE O. DRAKELEY et al., as County Commissioners within and for Williams County, North Dakota

No. 81912

Supreme Court of North Dakota

October 9, 1913

Appeal from an order of the District Court for Williams County Burr, Special Judge.

Reversed.

Reversed and Remanded.

Geo. A Bangs and Geo. R. Robbins file brief of points and authorities on behalf of the state association of county auditors, and by permission of the court.

Mandamus is not the proper remedy. The relator is not a party beneficially interested. People ex rel. Bartlett v Busse, 238 Ill. 593, 28 L.R.A.(N.S.) 246, 87 N.E. 840; State ex rel. Hawes v. Brewer, 39 Wash. 65, 109 Am St. Rep. 858, 80 P. 1001, 4 Ann. Cas. 197; Lewright v. Love, 95 Tex. 157, 65 S.W. 1089; 26 Cyc. 402; Harrell v. Lynch, 65 Tex. 146; Sweet v. Smith, 153 Mich. 674, 117 N.W. 59; Van Horn v. State, 51 Neb. 232, 70 N.W. 941; Nickelson v. State, 62 Fla. 247, L.R.A.(N.S.) , 57 So. 194; Union P. R. Co. v. Hall, 91 U.S. 343, 355, 23 L.Ed. 428, 432; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Suffern, 129 Ill. 282, 21 N.E. 824.

The acts sought to be coerced are discretionary, and hence mandamus will not lie. Looscan v. Harris County, 58 Tex. 511; Kerby v. Clay County, 71 Kan. 683, 81 P. 503; People ex rel. Damron v. McCormick, 106 Ill. 184; Lewright v. Love, 95 Tex. 157, 65 S.W. 1089; Lewright v. Bell, 94 Tex. 556, 63 S.W. 623; Board of Education v. Cherokee County, 150 N.C. 116, 63 S.E. 724; Ward v. Beaufort County, 146 N.C. 534, 125 Am. St. Rep. 489, 60 S.E. 418; Glenn v. Moore County, 139 N.C. 412, 52 S.E. 58; People ex rel. Bartlett v. Busse, 238 Ill. 593, 28 L.R.A.(N.S.) 246, 87 N.E. 840; State ex rel. Hawes v. Brewer, 39 Wash. 65, 109 Am. St. Rep. 858, 80 P. 1001, 4 Ann. Cas. 197; State ex rel. Rosbach v. Pratt, 68 Wash. 157, 122 P. 987; Boyne v. Ryan, 100 Cal. 265, 34 P. 707; Everding v. McGinn, 23 Ore. 15, 35 P. 178; Lamb v. Webb, 151 Cal. 451, 91 P. 102, 646; State ex rel. Moody v. Barnes, 25 Fla. 298, 23 Am. St. Rep. 516, 5 So. 722; Wailes v. Smith, 76 Md. 469, 25 A. 922; Kerr v. Superior Ct. 130 Cal. 183, 62 P. 479; Fuller v. University & S. Lands, 21 N.D. 212, 129 N.W. 1029; 13 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 497; Huntington v. Nicoll, 3 Johns. 566; State ex rel. Ellis v. Board of Revenue, 172 Ala. 190, 55 So. 179; Jackson v. Cochran, 134 Ga. 396, 67 S.E. 825, 20 Ann. Cas. 219; State ex rel. Romano v. Yakey, 43 Wash. 15, 85 P. 990, 9 Ann. Cas. 1071; 19 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 724; State ex rel. Ellis v. Board of Revenue, 172 Ala. 190, 55 So. 179; Drew v. Madison, 146 Iowa 721, 125 N.W. 815; Norris v. Cross, 25 Okla. 287, 105 P. 1000; McAlester-Edwards Coal Co. v. State, 31 Okla. 629, 39 L.R.A.(N.S.) 810, 122 P. 194.

The remedy, if any there be, is the prosecution or removal of the officers. Rev. Codes 1905, §§ 9101, 9104 & 9498; Ward v. Beaufort County, 146 N.C. 534, 125 Am. St. Rep. 489, 60 S.E. 418; Glenn v. Moore County, 139 N.C. 412, 52 S.E. 58.

The true interpretation of the 1907 enactment authorizes and permits the county auditors to retain the fees provided by law to be collected by them, up to the maximum of their compensation allowed by law as salary. Rev. Codes 1905, § 2592; Sess. Laws 1907, chap. 70; 34 Cyc. 1826; 7 Words & Phrases, 6287; 18 Cyc. 462; 3 Words & Phrases, 2712.

Repeals by implication are not favored. Reeves v. Bruening, 16 N.D. 398, 114 N.W. 313.

Where statutes are irreconcilable or wholly repugnant, the later enactment will prevail. State v. Cooper, 18 N.D. 583, 120 N.W. 878.

When two acts are passed by the same session of the legislature, touching the same subject-matter, there is a strong presumption against implied repeal. 36 Cyc. 1086; 1 Lewis's Sutherland, Stat. Constr. § 268; State ex rel. Hay v. Hindson, 40 Mont. 353, 106 P. 362; Tampa v. Prince, 63 Fla. 387, 58 So. 542; State ex rel. Scholl v. Duncan, 162 Ala. 196, 50 So. 265; Southern P. Co. v. Sorey, 104 Tex. 476, 140 S.W. 334; State ex rel. Hendricks v. Marion County, 170 Ind. 621, 85 N.E. 513.

A general law will not impliedly repeal a special law, unless the terms of the two acts are absolutely repugnant and cannot be reconciled. 36 Cyc. 1087; Reeves v. Bruening, 16 N.D. 398, 114 N.W. 313; Birmingham v. Southern Exp. Co. 164 Ala. 529, 51 So 159; State ex rel. Metcalf v. Baker, 114 Minn. 209, 130 N.W. 999; Wilson v. Edwards County, 85 Kan. 422, 116 P. 614; Greenbush Cemetery Asso. v. Van Natta, 49 Ind.App. 192, 94 N.E. 899.

The settled and contemporaneous construction placed upon a statute has great and persuasive weight, even though not controlling. 36 Cyc. 1136; Cooley, Const. Lim. 81, 86; Lewis's Sutherland, Stat. Constr. §§ 472 et seq.; State ex rel. Edgerly v. Currie, 3 N.D. 317, 55 N.W. 858; Garr, S. & Co. v. Sorum, 11 N.D. 174, 90 N.W. 799; United States v. Hill, 120 U.S. 169, 30 L.Ed. 627, 7 S.Ct. 510; United States v. Finnell, 185 U.S. 236, 46 L.Ed. 890, 22 S.Ct. 633; VanVeen v. Graham County, 13 Ariz. 167, 108 P. 252; Copper Queen Consol. Min. Co. v. Territorial Bd. of Equalization, 9 Ariz. 383, 84 P. 511; Douglas County v. Vinsonhaler, 82 Neb. 810, 118 N.W. 1058; State ex rel. Reardon v. Hooker, 26 Okla. 460, 109 P. 527; State ex rel. Bashford v. Frear, 138 Wis. 536, 120 N.W. 216, 16 Ann. Cas. 1019; Price v. Lancaster County, 189 Pa. 95, 41 A. 987; Auditor v. Cain, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1888, 61 S.W. 1016; Harrison v. Com. 83 Ky. 162; Ewing v. Vernon County, 216 Mo. 681, 116 S.W. 518; State v. Brady, Tex. Civ. App. , 114 S.W. 895; Kelly v. Multnomah County, 18 Ore. 356, 22 P. 1110; Brown v. Foster, 88 Me. 49, 31 L.R.A. 116, 33 A. 662; Bloxham v. Consumers' Electric Light & Street R. Co. 36 Fla. 519, 29 L.R.A. 507, 51 Am. St. Rep. 44, 18 So. 444; People v. Adelphi Club, 149 N.Y. 5, 31 L.R.A. 510, 52 Am. St. Rep. 700, 43 N.E. 410; Bernard v. Benson, 58 Wash. 191, 137 Am. St. Rep. 1051, 108 P. 439; Com. ex rel. Lewis v. Paine, 207 Pa. 45, 56 A. 317; Smith v. Bryan, 100 Va. 199, 40 S.E. 652; Matz v. Chicago & A. R. Co. 85 F. 180; Collins v. Henderson, 11 Bush, 74; State v. Rutland R. Co. 81 Vt. 508, 71 A. 197; State ex rel. Platte County v. Sheldon, 79 Neb. 455, 113 N.W. 208; State v. Davis, 62 W.Va. 500, 14 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1142, 60 S.E. 584; State v. Northern P. R. Co. 95 Minn. 43, 103 N.W. 731; Rohrer v. Hastings Brewing Co. 83 Neb. 111, 119 N.W. 27, 17 Ann. Cas. 998; Edwards v. Darby, 12 Wheat. 206, 6 L.Ed. 603; United States v. Moore, 95 U.S. 760, 24 L.Ed. 588; Hahn v. United States, 107 U.S. 402, 27 L.Ed. 527, 2 S.Ct. 494; Brown v. United States, 113 U.S. 568, 28 L.Ed. 1079, 5 S.Ct. 648; United States v. Philbrick, 120 U.S. 52, 30 L.Ed. 559, 7 S.Ct. 413; United States v. Johnston, 124 U.S. 236, 31 L.Ed. 389, 8 S.Ct. 446; Robertson v. Downing, 127 U.S. 607, 32 L.Ed. 269, 8 S.Ct. 1328; Schell v. Fauche, 138 U.S. 562, 34 L.Ed. 1040, 11 S.Ct. 376; Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U.S. 23, 35 L.Ed. 370, 11 S.Ct. 699; United States v. Alabama G. S. R. Co. 142 U.S. 615, 35 L.Ed. 1134, 12 S.Ct. 306; 36 Cyc. 1151; 2 Lewis's Sutherland, Stat. Constr. p. 890; Harrington v. Smith, 28 Wis. 43.

H. W. Braatelien, for appellant.

The fees collected by county auditors, for certifying to abstracts, deeds, etc., belong to their respective counties. Rev. Codes 1905, § 2592; Sess. Laws 1907, chap. 70, p. 96; Rev. Codes 1905, § 1597; Sess. Laws 1907, p. 351.

Courts must construe a given statute with reference to and in connection with all other provisions of statute law bearing upon the same subject-matter. Wishek v. Becker, 10 N.D. 63, 84 N.W. 590; Finch v. Armstrong, 9 S.D. 255, 68 N.W. 741.

Repeals by implication are not favored. State ex rel. Berry v. Babcock, 21 Neb. 599, 33 N.W. 247.

Such statutes should not be construed in an antagonistic manner, unless such is the clear intent of the legislature. Sutherland, Stat. Constr. 287; 26 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 721; Reeves v. Bruening, 16 N.D. 402, 114 N.W. 313; People v. Thompson, 161 Mich. 391, 126 N.W. 466; State ex rel. Berry v. Babcock, 21 Neb. 599, 33 N.W. 247.

The intention of the legislature governs. State ex rel. Erickson v. Burr, 16 N.D. 591, 113 N.W. 705; Sutherland, Stat. Constr. 2d ed. § 623; Shellenberger v. Ransom, 41 Neb. 631, 25 L.R.A. 564, 59 N.W. 935.

Repeals by implication are, however, recognized as intended by the legislature, and its intention to repeal is ascertained in other respects, when not expressly declared, by construction. State ex rel. Flaherty v. Hanson, 16 N.D. 347, 113 N.W. 371; State v. Minneapolis & N. Elevator Co. 17 N.D. 23, 138 Am. St. Rep. 691, 114 N.W. 482; Atty. Gen. v. Railroad Comrs. 117 Mich. 477, 76 N.W. 69; State v. Cooper, 18 N.D. 583, 120 N.W. 878; Sutherland, Stat. Constr. 2d ed. 461.

Where statutes are wholly repugnant and cannot be harmonized, the last legislative expression governs. Iowa Sav. & L. Asso. v. Heidt, 107 Iowa 297, 43 L.R.A. 689, 70 Am. St. Rep. 197, 77 N.W. 1050; Busby v. Riley, 6 S.D. 401, 61 N.W. 165; State ex rel. Excelsior v. District Ct. 107 Minn. 437, 120 N.W. 894; State v. Omaha Elevator Co. 75 Neb. 637, 106 N.W. 984, 110 N.W. 874, authorities cited; Ex parte Sohncke, 148 Cal. 262, 2 L.R.A.(N.S.) 817, 113 Am. St. Rep. 236, 82 P. 956, 7 Ann. Cas. 475; Rohrer v. Hastings Brewing Co. 83 Neb. 111, 119 N.W. 27, 17 Ann. Cas. 998; First Nat. Bank v. Lewis, 18 N.D. 390, 121 N.W. 836; State v. Cooper, 18 N.D. 583, 120 N.W. 878.

It is the duty of the county commissioners to audit and adjust the accounts of delinquent county officers, and they may be compelled to do so. Clay County v. Simonsen, 1 Dak. 403, 46 N.W. 593; Jerauld County v. Williams, 7 S.D. 196, 63 N.W. 906.

An action may be maintained for such purpose by the state's attorney. Kerby v. Clay County, 71 Kan. 683, 81 P 503...