ARR.] HINES V. MILLS. 465 HINES V. MILLS. - 4-3012 Opinion delivered May 15, 1933.. 1. GUARDIAN AND WARD—INVESTMENT OF FUNDS.—Under Acts 1929, No. 36, § 12, providing that the guardian of a war veteran !`shall invest the funds of the estate in s ' uch manner or in such securities, in which the guardian has no interest, as alloWed by law or approved by the court," held that the worde "or" is not used in the sense of "and"; nothing in the context requiring such a meaning. 2. STAT UTEs—coNsTRucTION.---Statutes are to be construed according ,to the natural and obvious meaning of their language, without resorting to subtle and forced constructions for the purpose of • limiting or eictending their operation. Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court; T. G. Parham, Judge; affirmed. Cleveland Cabler, for appellant. R..W. Wilson, for appellee. HUMPHREYS, J. This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of Jefferson County affirming an order of the probate court of said -county directing ap-pellee, as guardian of Veota .House, to invest $994.50- of the ward's Money in' Cities Service common stock. The order was made by the probate court on petition of the guardian on September 9, 1930. The trust fund invested was obtained from the United States Government through the Veterans' Administration, and appellant, acting in the interest of the trust fund, through his attorney, in 1932, filed a petition in said probate court to charge ap-pellee with the amount thus invested on the ground that the probate court was without authority to make such -order. s The order of the probate court was made pursuant to § 12 of act 36 ,of the General Assembly of 1929,
466 HINES V: MILLS.- known as the Uniform Veterans' Guardianship • Act, which is as follows :• - "Every gUardian shall invest the fund§ . of the estate in such manner or in such securities, in which the guardian has no interest, as allowed by law or approved by the court." The language of the act is unambiguous, and, as written, has one meaning only. It says and means that a. guardian may invest his ward's funds in securities "allowed by law or approved by the court." It is con-tended- by appellant tha't the Word _"or" should be construed as meaning "and" in order to effectuate the intent of the Legislature. In'other words, -it is contended that the statute means and was intended to mean that a guardian might invest the trust fund . in only such securities - as the law allowed if and- when approved by the court. It is only permissible to use the words "or" and "and" interchangeably in statutes where the context 'requires that it be done to effectuate the manifest intention . of the Legislature or where. not to do , so would render the meaning ambiguous or result in an absurdity. It is not necessary to substitute the conjunctive "and" for the disjunctive "or" in the , statute. to prevent eithei- a dubious meaning or an absurd one.. There iS nothing in the context to indicate that the Legislature intended-in the enactment to use the•word "and" in the place of the word "or." If the purpose of the Legislature was to authorize guardians to invest the:trust fund in securities designated by. it-as . well as those which the probate court might approve, then the- word "or" . was not used by it through mistake. The word "or" was used . Without rendering the meaning either dubious or absurd. It would not be permissible for' tbis court -to substitute the 'word "and" for "or" to effectuate a change in the intention of -the- Legislature . Such a change would amount to an encroachment upon legislative prerogatives. Appellant argues that it must be done in order to harmonize this statute with other statutes relating to the same subject. We think not if thiS statute be treated as enlarging previous Statutes by permitting the guardian
to invest the trust fund in additional securities when approved by an order of the probate court. There is no • conflict .between this..actand- previouS, acts relating to the . investment .of. trust funds by gUaydians ;, so, .if the word ``or . " is left in the: act in question, all -the .acts are: pari ,materia, and may be read:as- alarmonious ':The current of authority .at- the present . day• is in favor, of reading statutes 'according - to the- natural .and most obvious import- of the language,. without :resorting to subtle: and forced construetions for the purpose..of limiting or extending their operation: Waller. v. Harris, 20 Wend. 562; Phillips Co'unty v. Pillow, 47 Ark. 404, 1. S. W. -686 ;. Fernwood Mining Company v. Pluna, 138 Ark. 459; 213 S. W. 397; Parker v. Wilson, 99. Ark. 344, 137 S. W. : 926. • No error aPpearing, the judgment is affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.