{ "id": 1583323, "name": "Bartlett v. Willis", "name_abbreviation": "Bartlett v. Willis", "decision_date": "1921-02-14", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "374", "last_page": "375", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "147 Ark. 374" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "133 Ark. 90", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1575100 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/133/0090-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 Ark. 250", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1499085 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/77/0250-01" ] }, { "cite": "34 Ark. 356", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1875723 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/34/0356-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 Ark. 90", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1575100 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/133/0090-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 226, "char_count": 3655, "ocr_confidence": 0.505, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2943424461603627e-07, "percentile": 0.6205962200885071 }, "sha256": "a60ca91053009b7df3d6ea0c85d42b0a4611195aa577c88c3a168344118d8a68", "simhash": "1:8a9c69ea65a9ce34", "word_count": 595 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:16:35.379050+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Bartlett v. Willis." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McCulloch, C. J.\nAppellee is a taxpayer in Johnson County, and he instituted this action against appellant, who is the tax collector of said county, to compel the latter to accept county warrants tendered in payment of taxes levied for county purposes. Appellant refused to accept the warrants on the ground that he is prohibited from doing so by a special statute in force in that county. Acts 1917, p. 449.\nAppellee contends that the statute in question is in conflict with a clause of the Constitution which provides that \u201ctaxes of counties, towns and cities shall only be payable in lawful currency of the United States, or the orders or warrants of said counties, towns and cities, respectively.\u201d Art. 16, \u00a7 10.\nThis statute provides for the registration of county warrants by the treasurer \u201cin the order of their presentation to him by the holder thereof. \u2019 \u2019 Section 5 of the statute provides that \u201cwarrants properly registered under the requirements of the act shall be redeemable in cash, or at par, by the county treasurer to the credit of the county general fund to meet the same;\u201d and section 6 provides that \u201ccounty warrants mentioned in section 5 shall be redeemable in the order of their registration, and for this purpose the county treasurer shall number said warrants consecutively in the order registered * * *.\u201d\nOur conclusion is that this statute does not expressly nor by necessary implication prohibit the acceptance of warrants in payment of county taxes, and that it is not in conflict with the general'statute which provides that collectors \u201cshall receive county warrants in payment of county taxes.\u201d Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, \u00a7 1993. There is no irreconcilable repugnance between the two statutes, and repeals by implication are not favored, unless such repugnancy exists. The special statute now under consideration only provides the order in which county warrants are \u201credeemable\u201d by the county treasurer. It says nothing about the acceptance of warrants in payment of taxes \u2014 a method of honoring warrants expressly recognized in the Constitution and expressly provided for in the general statute. Worthen v. Roots, 34 Ark. 356; Stillwell v. Jackson, 77 Ark. 250; Gould v. Davis, 133 Ark. 90.\nThe treasurer is the officer who receives and pays out the funds of the -county, and the word \u2018 \u2018 redeemable, \u2019 \u2019 as used in the statute, must be construed to refer to pay.ments of warrant by the treasurer out of the county funds in his custody. It is unnecessary, therefore, to discuss the constitutionality of the statute in any of its aspects.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "McCulloch, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Eeartsill Ragon, for appellant.", "Jesse Reynolds and G. O. Patterson, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Bartlett v. Willis.\nOpinion delivered February 14, 1921.\n1. Counties \u2014 registration op warrants as affecting acceptance for taxes. \u2014 Acts 1917, p. 449, providing for the registration of warrants of Johnson County by the treasurer and for their redemption by him in the order of their presentation, does not expressly or impliedly prohibit their acceptance by the collector in payment of taxes, under Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, \u00a7 1993.\n2. Statutes \u2014 implied repeals. \u2014 Repeals by implication are not favored unless irreconcilable repugnance exists between the two statutes.\nAppeal from Johnson Circuit Court; A. B. Priddy, Judge;\naffirmed.\nEeartsill Ragon, for appellant.\nThe court erred in sustaining the demurrer, as act 94 of 1917 is constitutional. The act does not contravene article 16, \u00a7 10, of the Constitution. 133 Ark. 90 ; 77 Id. 250.\nJesse Reynolds and G. O. Patterson, for appellee.\nThe act, No. 94 of 1917, contravenes article 16, \u00a7 10, Constitution 1874, and the court below so held properly. The decision is sustained and supported by. 133 Ark. 90; 77 Id. 250." }, "file_name": "0374-01", "first_page_order": 398, "last_page_order": 399 }