Walker v. Allred.
Opinion delivered September 23, 1929.
- APPEAL AND ERROR—ISSUE TRIED BELOW.—Where an action by one elected as sheriff to oust one elected as county tax collector was tried solely on the question whether there was, at the time of the election, the separate office of tax collector, and the trial court had before it all the information necessary for the determination of that question and so expressly declared in its judgment, the Supreme Court will likewise disregard questions relating to the tax collector's taking the oath of office and filing of bond and approval thereof, and will limit its consideration, to the issue decided by the court below.
- TAXATION—REPEAL OF ACT CREATING TAX COLLECTOR.—Acts 1927, c. 77, held to repeal Acts 1897, c. 32, creating the office of tax collector in Carroll County.
- STATUTES—MEANING OF LANGUAGE USED.—Where the will of the Legislature is clearly expressed, the court should adhere to the literal expression of the enactment without regard to the consequences, and every construction derived from a consideration of the reason and spirit should be discarded, for it is dangerous to interpret a statute contrary to its express words where it is not obvious that the maker meant something different from what they said.
Appeal from Carroll Circuit Court, Eastern District; J. S. Maples, Judge; reversed.
Festus O. Butt, for appellant.
W. J. Tate and Chas. D. James, for appellee.
BUTLER, J. At the 1928 election in Carroll County the name of Jack Walker, appellant, appeared on the ballot, without opposition, as Democratic candidate for sheriff of Carroll County, and the name of E. O. Allred appeared on said ballot, unopposed, as the Democratic candidate for collector of Carroll County. Each received a majority of the votes cast; each was thereafter certified by the election board of the county as the officer-elect for the office sought; and each was issued a commission by the Governor for the respective office sought. Each thereafter presented a bond as collector of Carroll County to the county court; the bond of appellant was accepted and approved; that of the appellee was rejected by the county court and approval thereof refused.
