Sartin v. Snell

Citations

• 87 Kan. 485
• 125 P. 47
• 1912 Kan. LEXIS 177

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Statute — Authorizing Appointment of County Auditor — ■ Valid. Article 13 of chapter 25 of the General Statutes of 1909 (Gen. Stat. 1909, §§ 2282-2299), creating the office of county auditor in certain counties and conferring upon the district court the power of appointing a suitable person to such office is a valid exercise of legislative authority.</p> <p>2. The 'Terms — “Court,” “Judge” — “District Court,” “District Judge,” construed. The legislature often uses the words “court” and “judge,” “district court” and “district judge,” without discrimination. “Court” will be construed to mean “judge” and “judge” will be construed to mean “court” wherever either construction is necessary to carry into effect the obvious intent of the legislature. It is held, therefore, that by the words “district court,” as used in section 1 of the act in question (Gen. Stat. 1909, § 2282) the legislature meant to confer upon the judge of the district court in certain counties authority to appoint a county auditor.</p> <p>8. County Auditor — Confirmation by County Commissioners. Under the statute as amended by section 1 of chapter 67 of the Laws of 1876, and subsequent amendments thereto, confirmation by the board of county commissioners of the appointment of a county auditor is not necessary.</p> <p>4. - Appointment — Judges of District Court. Where the district court consists of two or more divisions the appointment of a county auditor, in order to be valid, must be made by the judges of the divisions, or a majority thereof, acting jointly.</p>