State Revenue Agent v. Hill

Citations

• 70 Miss. 106

Syllabus

<p>1. Repeal oe Statute. Laws 1890, p. 25. Code 1892, eh. 126. Revenue agent.</p> <p>The act of 1890 (Laws, p. 25), providing- for the collection of delinquent revenue by the state revenue agent, was repealed by the adoption of chapter 126, code 1892, relating to the same general subject.</p> <p>2. Revenue Agent. Suit by, abated. Repealed statute. Code 1892, eh. 126.</p> <p>Said chapter 126, code 1892, does not authorize the state revenue agent to sue an assessor for taxes lost because of his failure to assess the same, and a pending suit, brought by him under the act of 1890, to recover taxes so lost, was abated April 2, 1892, upon the adoption of the code chapter which repealed said act.</p> <p>3. Same. Code 1892, § 4; effect of. Suit under repealed, statute.</p> <p>Such pending suit was not saved by § 4, code 1892, declaring that the repeal of any statute by the code provisions should not affect any suit commenced, etc., because this section, though adopted as a part of the code April 2, did not take effect until November 1, 1892.</p> <p>4. Constitutional Law. Legislative power. Creating additional offices.</p> <p>The legislature may create offices or agencies not specifically provided for in the constitution, subject to the limitation that there must be no invasion of the plan of the fundamental law, and nothing done inconsistent with the unobstructed operation of any of its provisions.</p> <p>5. Same. State revenue agent; hispoweis.</p> <p>Accordingly, while the constitution provides for various state, and county officers, and makes no mention of state revenue agent, if is competent for the legislature to provide for the selection of such officer, and to arm him with the power to bring any action which the state or any of its political subdivisions could' bring,</p> <p>■6. Code 1892. Validity. Adoption. Chapter 126. State revenue agent.</p> <p>Chapter 126, code 1892, relative to state revenue agent, was lawfully adopted as part of the code. Hunt v. Wright, post