Lawrence County v. Meade County

Citations

• 6 S.D. 528
• 62 N.W. 131
• 1895 S.D. LEXIS 146

Syllabus

<p>1. In the construction of a statute, the particular inquiry is not what is the abstract force of the words used, or what they may comprehend, but in what sense they were intended to be used as they are found in the act.</p> <p>2. Genei'al words do not always extend to every case which literally falls within them, but when the intention can be collected from the statute itself, words may be modified, altered or supplied so as to obviate any repugnance or inconsistency with such intention.</p> <p>3. L. county, having ai} indebtedness, both bonded and floating, was by act of the territorial legislature divided, and the segregated portion erected into the county of M. The act provided that M. county should assume and pay its proper proportion of all indebtedness of L. county, fixing a rule by which proportion should be ascertained. It further provided that M. county should issue bonds to L. county for its proportion of L. county’s obligations which it was to assume, which bonds should correspond in respect to time of maturity, rate of interest, and place of payment with the obligations of L. county. Held, that as to the floating indebtedness of L. county represented by past-due warrants, the provisions for the issue of bonds by M. county could not apply without involving the incongruous consequence, among others, of issuing bonds with no term to run or future time of payment, and that such provisions for issuing bonds by M. county did not apply to the floating indebtedness represented by past due warrants.</p> <p>4. Held, further, that the effect of the act was to require M. county to assume its share of the floating indebtedness of L. county, and as between itself and L. county, to make payment of the same in the usual way of paying matured indebtedness.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.</p>