Steinfeld, Co. Atty., v. Jefferson Co. Fiscal Court

• Decision Date: 18 April 1950
• Parties: Steinfeld, County Attorney, v. Jefferson County Fiscal Court et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

312 Ky. 614

Steinfeld, County Attorney, v. Jefferson County Fiscal Court et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 18, 1950.

Action by Samuel Steinfeld, County Attorney (now Lawrence G. Duncan, County Attorney), and others, against Jefferson County Fiscal Court and others, for declaratory judgment as to whether Fiscal Court had authority to purchase uniform for members of county police force. The Circuit Court, Chancery Branch, First Division, Jefferson County, Lawrence F. Speckman, J., entered judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals, Van Sant, C., held that Fiscal Court had authority to purchase uniforms for members of county police force.

Judgment affirmed.

1. Statutes. — The rule of "ejusdem generis" is that where, in a statute, general words follow or precede a designation of particular subjects or classes of persons, the meaning of the general words ordinarily will be presumed to be restricted by the particular designation, and to include only things or persons of the same kind, class or nature as those specifically enumerated, unless there is a clear manifestation of a contrary purpose.

2. Statutes. — "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius," meaning the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another thing, is a maxim often, but not universally, applied in statutory construction as an aid in arriving at the intention of the Legislature.

3. Counties. — In statute granting power to county court to make and amend rules and regulations for the equipment of county police force, the word "equipment" includes uniforms where ownership is retained by the department. KRS 70.550.

4. Counties. — Where county court adopted a regulation that all members of county police force while on active duty should wear uniforms to be furnished by county and directing each member to return his uniform to department on ceasing to be a member thereof, the Fiscal Court had power to appropriate funds necessary to purchase such uniforms. KRS 70.550, 70.560, 70.561; Const. sec. 161.

Lawrence G. Duncan and Lawrence S. Poston for appellants.

Edwin H. Stierle for appellees.

Before Lawrence F. Speckman, Judge.

VAN SANT, COMMISSIONER.

Affirming.

We are asked to determine whether the Jefferson County Fiscal Court legally may appropriate money to the Jefferson County Police Department for the purchase of uniforms which at all times shall remain the property of the department but shall be worn by members of the police force at such times as they shall be on active duty.

KRS 70.550 recites: "The county court shall have and is hereby granted the power to make, promulgate and amend rules and regulations for the appointment, promotion, transfer, laying-off, suspension, reinstatement, fine and removal of the personnel of the said county police force, the number of hours of each day, week or month the officers and members shall be on duty, and for the standardization and classification of all of the members of said force into groups, grades, and divisions or subdivisions, and for the organization, equipment and maintenance of said police force, subject to the rights of the fiscal court of the respective counties to fix salaries and compensation of all of the officers and employes of said police department, provided, however, that no fees shall be allowed or paid to said officers or employes."

KRS 70.560, in so far as pertinent to the question, provides: "The fiscal court shall, by order, fix the amount of the salary of all appointees within the limitations herein provided and may within their discretion provide for motor vehicles, stations, substations, places of detention, telephone, wireless, radio or other means of communication within their discretion and make appropriate levy and appropriations therefor, * * *."

Pursuant to its construction of KRS 70.550, supra, the County Court of Jefferson County on the 26th day of October, 1949, by order, adopted a regulation to the effect that all members of the Jefferson County Police Force, while on active duty, should wear uniforms to be furnished by the county and directing each member of the force to return his uniform to the department upon ceasing to be a member thereof. The order additionally requested the Jefferson Fiscal Court to make appropriations sufficient and adequate to purchase the uniforms. Pursuant to this request, and its construction of KRS 70.560, supra, the Fiscal Court entered an order appropriating the sum of $500 "out of the general levy" for such purchases.

Being of the opinion that the Fiscal Court has no authority to purchase uniforms for the members of the county police force, the attorney for Jefferson County filed this action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, Civil Code of Practice, sec. 639a — 1 et seq., seeking a declaration in respect to the question. The Chancellor concluded that the Fiscal Court is clothed with such authority and entered judgment accordingly. The appeal is from that judgment.

In seeking reversal of the judgment, appellants invoke the rule of ejusdem generis and the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius in construing KRS 70.550 and 70.560, and argue that with such aid the court should construe the statutes as divesting the Fiscal Court of its authority in the premises. In their endeavor to uphold the decision of the Chancellor, appellees contend that the Fiscal Court has implied authority to pay for the uniforms, if such are required to be worn by regulation adopted by the County Court.

Appellants additionally contend that by assuming the obligation to pay for the uniforms, the Fiscal Court, in effect, has increased the compensation of county officers in contravention of Section 161 of the Constitution; and, since most of the members of the police...