The State ex Inf. Gentry v. Meeker

• Decision Date: 27 June 1927
• Docket Number: 27405
• Citation: 296 S.W. 411,317 Mo. 719
• Parties: The State ex inf. North Todd Gentry, Attorney-General, v. David Meeker et al
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

296 S.W. 411

317 Mo. 719

The State ex inf. North Todd Gentry, Attorney-General, v. David Meeker et al

No. 27405

Supreme Court of Missouri

June 27, 1927

Writ denied.

North T. Gentry, Attorney-General, for Informant; Robert L. Lamar of Counsel.

(1) It is proper in construing a statute in order to arrive at the true legislative intent to read it in the light of all other statutes in pari materia, whether prior or subsequent in date of passage. A statute should be construed also in the light of a uniform policy of the Legislature with reference to such subject. 35 Cyc. 1147; State ex rel. v Davis, 284 S.W. 470. (2) The general policy of the Legislature in this State with reference to the organization of school districts, of all classes, is and always has been to fix a minimum requirement both as to enumeration and as to area or assessed valuation. Secs. 11199, 11200, 11201, 11203 11253, 11261, 11263, R. S. 1919. (3) The word "or" does not necessarily signify a disjunctive or alternative. Lewis's Sutherland on Statutory Construction (2 Ed.) pars. 377, 380, 397; United States v. Fiske, 70 U.S 445, 18 L.Ed. 243; Witherspoon v. Jernigan (Tex.), 76 S.W. 445. (4) In construing statutes the fundamental rule to be observed is to ascertain and give effect to the purpose of the Legislature. Under that rule the court may reject the words and figures when necessary to give effect to the manifest intention of the framers of the statute. Mere verbal inaccuracies, or clerical errors in statutes in the use of words, or numbers, or in grammar, spelling or punctuation will be corrected by the court whenever necessary to carry out the intention of the Legislature as gathered from the entire act. State ex rel. Consolidated School District v. Hackmann, 258 S.W. 1011. (5) Where a statute is prohibitory in its nature and forbids the doing of a certain act unless certain conditions precedent are complied with, such conditions are concurrent, and if through loose or inaccurate phraseology they are connected by the word "or" the word "or" should be read "nor" or "and" unless the clear, unmistakable and unequivocal intention of the Legislature is otherwise. United States v. Fiske, 70 U.S. 445, 18 L.Ed. 243; Lewis's Sutherland on Statutory Construction (2 Ed.), par. 377, 380, 397; Rice v. Ashland County, 108 Wis. 189, 84 N.W. 189; Witherspoon v. Jernigan, 76 S.W. 445; Maylone v. City of St. Paul, 42 N.W. 88; Weston v. Layhed, 14 N.W. 892; Murray v. Keyes, 36 Pa. 384; Foster v. Commonwealth, 8 Watts & S. 77; Canne v. Railroad, 23 N.W. 856; McConkey v. Superior Ct., 56 Cal. 83, Standard Co. v. Atty. Gen., 46 N.J.Eq. 270, 19 A. 753. According to the rule established by the above authorities, Sec. 11258 of the Act of 1925, Laws 1925, p. 331, which is the section under dispute in this case, absolutely requires as conditions precedent to the organization of a consolidated school district that such proposed district contain an area of at least fifty square miles, and also that it contain at least two hundred children of school age. These conditions are jurisdictional and concurrent, and both must be complied with to authorize a lawful consolidation.

Hiett, Lamar & Covert for respondents.

(1) The word "or" is ordinarily employed to indicate an alternative, as one or the other, but not both of two or more things. The word corresponds with either, as either "this or that;" that is to say, either one thing or another thing. State v. Combs, 273 S.W. 1037; Kach v. Fox, 75 N.Y.S. 913; Sheppard v. New Orleans, 25 So. 544; Webster's Dictionary. (2) In the construction of statutes words in common use should be given their plain, ordinary and natural meaning. Sec. 7058, R. S. 1919; McFarlan v. Railroad, 94 Mo.App. 366; Dworkin v. Insurance Co., 285 Mo. 363; Smith v. Railroad, 143 Mo. 33; State ex rel. v. Gordon, 266 Mo. 394; State ex rel. v. Wilder, 206 Mo. 541. (3) Where there is no ambiguity in the words of the statute there is no room for construction. Trefny v. Eichenseer, 262 Mo. 437; 36 Cyc. 1114; State ex rel. v. Wilder, 206 Mo. 549. (4) Secs. 11109, 11200, 11203, 11253, 11261, 11263, R. S. 1919, cited by the relator, do not apply to a consolidated district organized under the provisions of the Act of 1913, as amended in 1921, Laws 1921, page 654, but apply to common school districts and other consolidated school districts organized under other provisions of the school law. State ex inf. v. Schuster, 285 Mo. 399; State ex inf. v. Scott, 264 S.W. 371. (5) The Act of 1913, as amended in 1925, is a later expression of the legislative will than are the sections referred to in the above paragraph by the relator, and it by implication repeals all the provisions of the school law inconsistent with it. State ex inf. v. Scott, 264 S.W. 371; State ex rel. v. Wells, 210 Mo. 601; 36 Cyc. 1073. (6) The Act of 1913, pertinent to the matter in question, was construed by this court in the following cases: State ex inf. v. Clardy, 267 Mo. 371; State ex rel. v. Long, 204 S.W. 914. At the time the Legislature passed the Act of 1925, it knew the construction put on said section by the Supreme Court and enacted it in the same words as were in the Act of 1913, so far as this controversy is concerned. When the Supreme Court construes a statute and that statute is afterwards re-enacted or continued in force without any change in its terms, it is presumed that the Legislature adopted the construction given to it by the court. Handlin v. Morgan County, 57 Mo. 114; Camp v. Railroad, 94 Mo.App. 272.

Atwood, J. All concur, except Gantt, J., not sitting.

OPINION

ATWOOD

This is an information in the nature of a quo warranto by the Attorney-General against respondents who claim to be the duly elected, qualified and acting directors of Consolidated School District Number Four of Texas County, Missouri. Respondents made return to writ issued on relator's petition, and relator filed demurrer thereto, followed by motion for judgment on the pleadings. The issue presented is the validity of the organization of said consolidated school district, and the case turns on the construction to be given Section 11258, Revised Statutes 1919, as repealed and reenacted in Laws of Missouri 1925, page 331.

Section 11258 as originally enacted in 1913 was as follows:

"No consolidated district shall be formed under the provisions of the article unless it contains an area of at least twelve square miles or has an enumeration of at least two hundred children of school age; Provided, that no district formed under the provisions of this article shall include within its territory any town or city district that at the time of the formation of said consolidated district has by the last enumeration two hundred children of school age."

This section was repealed in 1925 and the following section enacted in lieu thereof:

"No consolidated district shall be formed under the provisions of this article unless it contains an area of fifty square miles or has an enumeration of at least two hundred children of school age. Provided, that no district formed under the provisions of this act shall include within its territory any town or city district that at the time of the formation of said consolidated district has by the last enumeration five hundred children of school age."

It will be observed that there are three conditions or prohibitions in each section attached to the formation of consolidated school districts. They relate to area, enumeration, and the size of any town or city district which may be included within a consolidated district. The first two are connected by the word "or" while the third appears as a proviso. The pleadings in the instant case purport to show that said consolidated school district was organized March 31, 1926; that "it does not contain fifty square miles in area, but that it does contain an enumeration of more than two hundred children of school age and does not include within its territory any town or city district at the time of its formation which had by its last enumeration five hundred children of school age." Relator contends that...