1110 RIVES V. WOODRUFF COUNTY. [179 • ItnrEs v. WOODRUFF COUNTY. •1 Opinion delivered . September 39, 1929. CLERKS OF COURTS—FEE OF COUNTY CLERK FOR * MAKING ABSTRACT OF LANDS.—Crawford & Moses' Dig., .§..9879; providing that the county clerk shall, on or before the first Monday u in June, deliver the abstract of lands to the assessor, Contemplates that the county clerk taking office on Jarivary 1 should _both make up and deliver such abstract and receive the fee therefor, and not that the clerk whose term exPired on DeCember 31 preceding should make out such abstract on or before the first Monday in the following June; there being nothing in the act tending to separate the making of the abstract from the delivery the'reof. . , Appeal from Woodruff Circuit Court,:Northern District.; W. D. Davev.port, Judge; affirmed.
WOODRUF : F COUNTY. 1111 • •• • 'k'ATEMENT. OF FACTS. On 'the-'31st d . ay 'Of 'DeceMber;'1928, Bill Rive's; 'as county Clerk; presented to the county, court his claim for making out the land •assessment books for the Northern and. Central . Districts -of Woodruff •: County, Arkansas, for 'the 'sum. of $200;-and his: claim was 'disallowed by the county court. He appealed to the -circuit court. . The . case: was tried :there upon the following facts;: Bill Rives was elected county. clerk . of . Woodruff County, Arkansas, at the general eleétion held in 1924,.and again in1,926... He was duly l qualified and • entered upon the discharge of hiS duties. as .such . county- clerk upon January. 1, 1925, and continued as sueh until Janhary 1, 1929. He made out , the land- assessment 'books' for said county during the years -1925, . 1927 and 1928. He received pay far making out the.land assessment.books far 1925 and 1927, and the present controversy . arises out 'of 'the failure of the county court to allow him the sum . of $200 for makingaht the, land : assessment:books for the year 1928. The mi . reuit cohrt disallowed , his claim, and he has appealed ,to this court . ..W.-J..Dungairi, for appellant: Elmo CailLee,,for.appellee: HART; 'C. J., (after stating the 'facts). Section 9879 of Crawford . 8& Moses' Digest proVides that the , clerk of the .cohnty court . shall, an: or 'before the first Monday in Jilhe next, and at the same time every second year thereafter, make aut and deliver to the assessor . of each county an abstraet eontaining'a deseriPtion of each tract of land situated in his connty, the. name af the aWner, if any, and the 'number' af acres or Tillantity of land contained therein, as- the' same shall aPPear : from the books of 'his office. Thi sectiarfaf the i statUte was §. 35 of an act passed March' 28,' 1887, :b'eing ari aet to . amend the revenue laws of the State. 'Prior to that time it was' made 'the duty of the clerk Of the 'County court ta deliver the land 'a:ssessmenf book 'to the 'assessori on 'or before
1112 RIVES V. WOODRUFF COUNTY'. [179 the first Monday in February, 1883, and at the same time every second year thereafter. Mansfield's Digest, § 5694. When appellant first entered into the office of county clerk he made out the land assessment book for the assessor for the years 1925 and 1927, and delivered the same to the assessor, under the provisions of § 9879, Crawford & Moses' Digest. The Legislature of 1927 provided that the fiscal year for the affairs of the counties. of the State of Arkansas should begin on the second Monday in November of each year. Acts of 1927, p. 1086. Appellant thought that the moving up of the date of the fiscal year would give him time to make out the land assessment book •before his term of office would expire, on the 31st day of December, 1928, and that this would entitle him to the fees prescribed by statute for making out such assessment book in accordance with the provisions of § 9879 of Crawford & Moses' Digest. We do not think so. The section of the statute in question, as well as the earlier provisions on the subject, provide that, on or before a certain designated day, and every two years thereafter, the county clerk should make out and deliver to the assessor of the county the land assessment book for such county. The Legislature contemplated that the making out and delivery of the land assessment book should be one continuous act, and should be done by the same person. The act contemplated that the clerk who should deliver the land assessment book should also make it out. There is nothing in the act which would tend to separate the making out of the abstract of the assessment book from the delivery of it. In the very nature of things, the two acts . eould only be performed by the clerk who was in office at the time the delivery was made. He would have plenty of time to make out the book after he had entered into the discharge of the duties of his office and to deliver the same to the assessor on or before the day prescribed by the act. This was the construction of the act by appellant when he was first
ARK . 1113 -inducted into the office of county clerk, and the construe-tiOn seems to have been acquiesced in by bis predecessor in office: In any event, we think that such .0onstrUction carries out the intention of- the -Legislature as indicated -by the language of the-statute; and we think there would be no good reason to change such interpretation because .a. subsequent Legislature moVed up the fiscal' year to an earlier date. - • , It folloWs that the judgment of the circuit court will therefore be: 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.