Case Name: The Commissioners of Shelby County v. Frego & Binkly
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1875-12
Citations: 26 Ohio St. 488
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Commissioners of Shelby County v. Frego & Binkly.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 26
Pages: 488–491

Head Matter:
The Commissioners of Shelby County v. Frego & Binkly.
By tho act of April 18, 1874 (71 Ohio L. 103), the matter of printing the annual report and statement of county commissioners was placed exclusively under the supervision of the commissioners. The act of April 1G,1861 (58 Ohio L. 84), on the same subject, was repealed by the act of April 5, 1866 (63 Ohio L. 128). An order of the Court of Common Pleas, directing the publication of the report of the committee appointed to examine the commissioners’ annual report, made after the passage of the aet.of 1874, is unauthorized.
Motion for leave to filé a petition in error to reverse the judgment of the District Court of Shelby county.
The original action was brought in the Court of Common Pleas of Shelby county, against the commissioners of the county, to recover the price and value of a newspaper publication of the report of the examiners appointed by the Court of Common Pleas to investigate the annual report and statement of the county commissioners of their official transactions during the year ending on the second Monday of September, 1874. The publication was made under an order of the Court of Common Pleas at its February term, 1875. It appears that the commissioners, immediately upon the making and filing of their report and statement, caused the same to be published, as required by the act of April 18, 1874 (71 Ohio L. 108), then in force, •and had duly paid the expenses of such publication. The commissioners refused payment of the claim sued upon the ground that it was not a valid claim against the county, and that the order for publication as made by the Court of Common Pleas was unauthorized by law.
The judgment in the Court of Common Pleas was in favor of the plaintiffs in the action, and this judgment was afterward affirmed by the District Court.
A question has been made as to the form of the remedy sought by the plaintiffs in the original action, which it is not deemed necessary now to consider. See The State ex rel. v. Comm’rs of Hamilton County, ante, p. 364.
Conklin $ Burress, for the motion :
There never was any law requiring publication in a newspaper of the examining committee’s report. The first act which required the commissioners to report to the court was passed April 8,1856 (53 Ohio L. 156, sec. 7), and required its publication in one newspaper at the expense of the county as directed by the court, which was repealed by the act of 1857 (54 Ohio L. 18), and this was repealed by the act of 1869 (56 Ohio L. 350), which was repealed by the act of 1872 (69 Ohio L. 42). The act of April 13, 1874, restored •the requirement of publication, but placed the whole .power and duty in the premises in the hands of the commissioners by express terms.
Murray &¡ Wilson, contra:
The order of publication was not without authority of law.
The act of February 26, 1857 (54 Ohio L. 18), requires publication at the expense of the county as directed by the court. This amends and repeals the act of 1856. The act of April 16, 1861 (Sayler, 103), contains the same provisions, and repeals acts of 1856-7. The act of April 5,1866 (63 Ohio L. 128), contains same provisions and repeals alone acts of 1856-7. The act of May 7, 1869 (66 Ohio L. 350), contains no provisions for publication atall,and repeals acts-of 1856-7 and 1866 alone.
The act of March 13, 1872 (69 Ohio L. 42), contains the-same provisions, but imposes a penalty on commissioners who shall neglect or refuse to publish. It repeals acts of 1856-7 and 1866 alone.
The act of April 18, 1874 (71 Ohio L. 103), provides for publication of report by the commissioners as soon as made,, and repeals acts of 1856-7, ’66, and ’72 alone.
The act of April 16, 1861 (Sayler, 103), has never been repealed, nor is it alluded to or noticed in any way in any of the subsequent acts.
It is not repealed by implication. Repeals by implication are never favored, and both must stand unless they contain irreconcilable, repugnant provisions; wheu alone the former gives place to the latter. Ex parte Von Hagan, 25 Ohio St. 430 ; Taylor v. Taylor, lb. 76.
The provisions of the act, of 1861 and 1874 are neither irreconcilable nor repugnant; nor do they necessarily conflict.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The claim upon which the original action was brought was not a valid claim against the county. The whole subject in relation to the annual reports of the county commissioners to the Court of Common Pleas, at the time of the transactions stated in the original pleadings, was regulated by the act of April 1874; and the only publication required was under the direction of the county commissioners. Their duty in this respect was duly performed by the plaintiffs in error, and the expenses thereof paid. The order made by the Court of Common Pleas was without authority of law.
It is contended by defendants in error that the act of April 16, 1861 (58 Ohio L. 84), under which the order of the Court of Common Pleas may be sustained -was and remains in force. We tbink otherwise. The act of 1861 was repealed by implication by the act of April 5, 1866 (63 Ohio L. 128). The entire subject was provided for and regulated by the-later act; hence the act of 1861 was superseded. The act of 1866 was repealed and superseded by the act of May 9, 1869 (66 Ohio L. 350). The act of 1869 was repealed and superseded by the act of March 13, 1872 (69 Ohio L. 42),, and the act of 1872 was repealed and superseded by tbe act of April 18, 1874 (71 Ohio L. 103).
Motion granted, and the judgment of the District Court and also the judgment of the Common Pleas reversed.