(DOWNLOAD) "Dickason v. Dickason" by Supreme Court of Montana * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: Dickason v. Dickason
• Author : Supreme Court of Montana
• Release Date : January 30, 1929
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 58 KB

Description

Mandamus — Statutes and Statutory Construction — When Words and Phrases may be Disregarded as Surplusage — State Board of Examiners — Disallowance of Wage Claims of State Employees Based on Surplusage of Phrase in Appropriation Bill. Statutes and Statutory Construction — Disregarding Words and Phrases — Defeating Legislative Intent — What May be Regarded as Surplusage. 1. In the construction of a statute the courts must pursue the intention of the legislature in enacting it, if possible; to arrive at such intention recourse must first be had to the language employed, and, when ascertained, words or phrases which, if given effect, might defeat the manifest purpose of the Act must be disregarded as surplusage. Same — Statute Fixing Salaries of State Capitol Employes — Amendment — Failure of Legislature to Carry Amendment into Appropriation Bill — Omission Treated as Surplusage. 2. Section 439, Revised Codes 1935, fixing the monthly salaries of the state capitol building janitors and other building employees, was amended at the 1943 legislative session so as to provide that such salaries shall be fixed by the State Board of Examiners, the amended Act becoming operative on the day of its approval — February 13, 1943. The appropriation bill providing funds for the payment of such salaries for the biennium of 1941 and 1942, as well as that for 1943 and 1944, specified that the appropriation was "for salaries fixed by law." The Board of Examiners, after the operative date of the amended Act, refused to approve the salary of a janitor for the month of March, 1943, on the ground that the salary was not then "fixed by law" and that therefore, even though the funds for payment were available, the claim could not be approved by it. Held, under rule 1, supra, in a proceeding in mandamus to compel approval and payment, that failure of the legislature to amend the appropriation bills for both biennia so as to make them harmonize with the amendment that the salaries shall be fixed by the Board of Examiners was an oversight, and that the phrase "fixed by law" may be disregarded as surplusage in order to give effect to the legislative intent to appropriate funds for the salaries, and peremptory writ ordered issued.

Download Free Books "Dickason v. Dickason" PDF ePub Kindle