Ward v. County of St. Louis, No. 38359.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtGantt
Citation183 S.W.2d 68
PartiesJOHN W. WARD, JR., Plaintiff in Error, v. COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS, Defendant in Error.
Docket NumberNo. 38359.
Decision Date06 November 1944
183 S.W.2d 68
JOHN W. WARD, JR., Plaintiff in Error,
v.
COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS, Defendant in Error.
No. 38359.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
Division One, November 6, 1944.

Writ of Error to Circuit Court of County of St. Louis.Hon. Julius R. Nolte, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Joseph A. Falzone and J. Corder Delworth for plaintiff in error.

(1) The plaintiff as justice of the peace may exercise such powers and receive such compensation as is or may be provided by law. Art. 6, Sec. 37, Const. of Mo. (2) Prior to November 1, 1939, plaintiff, as an elected and qualified justice of the peace, was compensated for his services as such by the collection and retention of costs allowed by law. Sec. 11778, R.S. 1929. (3) Plaintiff as an elected and qualified justice of the peace is authorized, but is not duty bound to solemnize marriages, as an officer of the state, and is authorized by law to collect, receive and retain a fee of $2 for each marriage solemnized. Secs. 3363, 13400, R.S. 1939. (4) Sections 3363 and 13400 authorizing plaintiff as justice of the peace to solemnize marriages and to receive and retain a fee of $2 for each has not been repealed. Laws 1939, p. 340. (5) Article 8, Chapter 11, Sections 2752-2758, 1939, should be interpreted in accordance with the intent and purpose of the General Assembly; should be construed to harmonize and give effect, and was intended to be consistent and harmonious. Cairo Bridge Co. v. Mitchell, 181 S.W. (2d) 496; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Scheuffler, 180 S.W. (2d) 742; State ex rel. v. Green, 180 S.W. (2d) 110. (6) Article 8, Chapter 11, R.S. 1939, does not and was not intended to substitute a salary for, or to deprive plaintiff and other justices of St. Louis County of the right to collect and retain $2 fee for solemnizing a marriage and does not and was not intended to require plaintiff to account for and pay over to the county treasurer the $2 collected for solemnizing a marriage. Art. 8, R.S. 1939; Secs. 3363, 13400, R.S. 1939; St. Louis v. Sommers, 50 S.W. 102; Smith v. Pettis County, 136 S.W. (2d) l.c. 288. (7) Article 8, Chapter 11, Sections 2752-2758, R.S. 1939, is a Revisions Act and therefore, the title to the revised act, Article 8, Chapter 10, R.S. 1929, becomes a part of said 1939 Act. Laws 1939, p. 340; Laws 1915, p. 324.

[183 S.W.2d 69]

Erwin F. Vetter for defendant in error.

A justice of the peace must account for all fees received "by virtue of his office," and this includes fees charged for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Hauschild v. Davis, No. 38981.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 6, 1944
    ...finally asked him "if it would be alright to take the order on approval" and Mederacke said "alright, go on and fix up the policy." The 183 S.W.2d 68 agent issued it on January 5, 1943 and sent a bill for it to Mederacke, but it was not paid and the policy was cancelled about January 14, 19......
1 cases
  • Hauschild v. Davis, No. 38981.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 6, 1944
    ...finally asked him "if it would be alright to take the order on approval" and Mederacke said "alright, go on and fix up the policy." The 183 S.W.2d 68 agent issued it on January 5, 1943 and sent a bill for it to Mederacke, but it was not paid and the policy was cancelled about January 14, 19......

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