56. SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, [35 Ark .Reynolds vs. Holland, as Sheriff. REYNOLDS VS. HOLLAND, as Sheriff. L STATUTES : Rule for construction of. ' In construing a statute, the question for the courts is, what did the legislature really intend to direct; and this intention must be sought in the whole of the act taken together, and other acts in pairi materia. If the language be plain, unambiguous and uncontrolled by other parts of the act, or other acts or laws upon the same subject, the courts can not give it a different mea.ning'to subserve a public policy or to maintain- its constitutional validity. The literal meaning of words will be disregarded, when it is obvious from the act itself that the use • of the word was a clerical error, or that the legislature intended it in a different sense from its common meaning. 2. COUNTY LINES : Power of legislature to &mtge. The power to change county lines is inherent in the legislature, subject to express constitutional restrictions, and the essential requisites of the state which are implied in our frame of government. The consent of a majoiity of the voters in the part taken off, is only • required in the case of new counties to be - formed out of portions of old ones. APPEAL from Chicot Circuit Court. How. T. F. SoKKELLs, Circuit Judge. Reynolds, for appellant. Pindall, contra. EAKIN; J.. Appellant recovered judgment in the Chicot cir; cuit court, against Watt C. Halley, on the sixteenth of Jan-nary, 1868, upon which, on the eighteenth of July, he sued out execution. The sheriff returned no property found. Appellant sued out an alias, and pointed out to the sheriff lands of the defendant in the west half of section 29, in township 13 south, of range 2 west, upon which he requested him to levy. The sheriff refused, upon the ground that the lands
. 35 Ark.] NOVEMBER TERM,- 1879. 57 .Reynolds vs. Holland, as Sheriff. were not within his county, and made return Of this reaRon upon the writ. Appellant then filed in court a petition for a mandamus to compel the levy, to which the defendant responded, relying upon the act of February 10, 1879. The court dismissed the petition, and Reynolds appealed. The validity of the act above cited is all that iS broughtrin question. No evidence upon either side appears to hs.ve been adduce d. By the act establishing the county of Drew, passed November 26, 1846 (sec. 17), all that portion of township 11 south, included in west ranges 2, 3, 4 and 5, the east half of range 6, and so much of range 1 as lay , south of Cypress baYou, "except sections 32 anui 33," were taken from Chicot county and added to Desha. This left the former county to consist of all the territory in the ,state lying south of the line between townships 11 and 12 south, and east of the range line between 3 and 4 west, together with the two sections above excepted (and, perhaps, a small fraction of section 31). These two sections lay, contiguous to the body of the county, on the north, and, ,as apPears from the United States government surveys, upon the Mississippi river.- Their exception in the act Of 1846, in the absence of other evidence, and in view , of the , fact that they were not necessary to make up the constitutional area of Chicot county, raised a presumption of their import7 ance to the county, which the courts are not authorized in overlooking. The act in question (February 10, 1879), was,.. passed,. :a.s its title expresses, "to change the bOundary -line between the counties of Chicot and Desha." Section -1 .TproVideS, "That the boundary line between the -counties -of, Cbioot and Desha, in_ the State of Arkansas, be, .and it is hereby,
Wi3 SUPREME•COURT OF ARKANSAS [35 Ark: •iteynolds vs. Holland,. as Sheriff. •thanged that all ihat Portion' of = aka County 'COMprised within the following limits, to wit: townShip 12:south, ' range 1` west; to-Wnship 12 south, range 2 west; township 12 ;south, _range.3 mest -; fractional section's 4, 5, 8 and 17, in township 13 south, range 1 west; township 13 south, range.2 west; sections 1, to 18, inclusive,- in township 13: south, range west, be and the same is. hereby detached from the county of Chicot, , and attached and added to the . county of Desha." . I . No:- provisions - are ‘ made, in, the act for distribution of the ;burden of the debt of Chicot, or fpr the transfer of causes pending in her . courts:. -, If the fOrce of the 'act 'is to be confined strictly to the literal import of the langaage, it - would, leave, as still belonging tO ` Ohicot, the sections 32 and 33, in township 11 south. 'They are nOt transferred eo nomine. This ' would leave Chicot consisting of two detaChed partS, not -contiguous at any point; and : with 'a considerable portion of ]i)esha intervening. It is nowhere proVided in the constitution, 111 &press language,. that Counties shall conSiSt of cOntiguous territ6rY, lying in a bOdy. Neither is there any description of Counties, nor express provision r of any . Jdnd for their organization. , They Are presupposed. , They underlie all the free governments of the . American states. They are essential to political representation, and to. . the administration of justice, through the courts, as' well as to local police. Their nature, organization, and functions, are . supposed to be so 'Well known, and . are, and have been' for nearly a thousand years, so well Understood, that it is not considered necessary in . constitutions to lay : the foundations of the government by providing . for them.' They are taken for . granted, , as issential foundatien stones in our free system of represen-
35 Ark.] NOVEMBER TERM, 1879. 59 Reynolds vs. Holland, ,as Sheriff. tativé goveniment, and no constitutional provisions , 'of an affirmatiVe character, regarding them, are made. . The provisions are restrictive on the legislative body. But 'express restrictions for their protection do not rethove those which spiring from the essential nature of these organizations. The legislature has no power to destroy the system, if it can be done without violating express prohibitions, but it can mould these political organizations, and define their ` boundaries, and impose upon them duties and obligations, witIlin the scope of their general purposes, a§ presupposed by , the constitution. A little reflection will make it clear that the system of counties, io be efficient, must include the idea that theY shall ' be composed of contiguous bodies of territory.. This needs no argument. It would not do to have a county composed of separate parcels of land, in separate portions of the state,.. like ,a small German,principality. The idea is . inconsistent with our form of government through county . . organizations. . :If the legislature intended . to retain sections 32 :and- 33. as parts of Chicot, they can not be neglected as -of too small importance for consideration. The doctrine, de -miniMis, etc.,' is- precluded by the act of 1846. . The act of . February 10; 1879, would in that view be void, as an attempt to abrogate and- destroy an essential..feature of . the government,. .to wit,- the division 'of the state into . solid counties of.contiguons thrritory: It: becomes .a -question of intention,. -to- be :reached by construction. • . 7 - The rule- t be applie d ' in this view; is:' First — That the in, tentiOn is 'to te - sought in the whole of 'the"d'et 1. statutes: taken together, a . n d in other ads *in Pori rrtate rid. -If the- langUage- be ' gain, -Unanibigdons, • fid Uneentrelied hy . Other parts'a the act; Or 'other-actii' o : i laws
66 SUPREME -CO -URT- OF ARKANSAS, [35 'Ark: Reynolds vs. Holland, as Sheriff. upon the sathe subject, the courts can not give it a different meaning to subserve a public policy, or to maintain its constitutional validity. The question for the courts is not what would be wise, politic and just, but what did the legislature really mean to direct. This narrow circle embraces and circumscribes the whole ambit of the court, although within that it may move very freely in catching the intention. It may disregard the literal meaning of words, when it is obvious from the ad itself that the use of the word has been a clerical error, or that the legislature intended it in a sense different from its common meaning. This was done by this court at the last May term, in the case of Haney v. The State, 34 Ark:, 263. The title of this act affords the clue to its intention. It was to change the boundary line between the two counties. It was not so much . the specific intent of the legislature to i , ransfer to Desha county the particular sections and townships designated, from anything peculiar to them, but rather to use them as the most convenient means of describ-in.g a lane to constitute the boundary between the two counties. , A view Of the plat of the government surveys, with the cognizance this court has of former boundaries, shows that this new line is very clearly established by the act, running entirely through and across the northern portion of Chicot, and making a clear division between that county and Desha. Enough territory is mentioned to fix the line, although all is not mentioned which lies north of it, and which must go with the other to make a line. This carries out the clear intention and makes a boundary line between the counties. The literal construction would not make a boundary line between the counties at all, but would leave their territories intermingled. This would be not only absurd but-unconstitutional. We must not attribute such an
35. 'Ark.] NOVEMlitR TRItt, 61 R4no1ds vi Ifolfand; intent to the legistatUre, ' When a Plainielear7, 7 constitutional intent can be derived from the act itself. There are numerous decisions, whick may bo found del-lected under note "a' to page 255 of Mr. Sedgwick's work of Const. , and Stat. , Law, 2d ed., to show that the intent.,and spirit of the act, ,and , not the literal Meaning, ninst govern, where absurd consoquences would ; otherwise •6a, .1.1ow. It is only necessary, upon the other • and, that the courts should take care to find the intent and' spirit in the • act itself, Or in laws. in pari materia, and not in their own views of policy. It is no objection to the validity of the act that it made no pro-'Vision for apportioning the burden of ' the 2: County debt of Chicot, or the transfer of causes in the rmes: Cower of . legislature Courts. These -matters do not 'affect the essen- to change. •ial nature and functions of . counties in our, system, and are within legislative control. The power to change county lines is inherent in the' legislature, snbject 'to eipfOs c . o nst , itutional restrictions, and the essential requisites of the state which are implied in our frame of government. See case of Eagle et al. v. Beard, 33 Ark., 497. The consent of a majority of the voters in the part taken off is only required in the case of new counties — Consent of to be formed out of portions of old ones. inhabitants. The mandamus was properly refused. Affirm.
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.