Court Opinion

ID: 9582734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:30:44.640593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:16.496534
License: Public Domain

On Motion eor Rehearing.
Almand, Justice.
Counsel for the plaintiffs in error in their motion for rehearing insist “that the court in this case did not seek to find the legislative intent as expressed from the statute [Ga. L. 1958, p. 114], but erroneously applied a rule of statutory construction dealing with situations where parties have previously acquired [a] vested right.”
The history of the act of 1958, amending Code § 56-601, may be referred to as tending to- aid in the construction to be given the statute. Mayor &c. of Savannah v. Hartridge, 8 Ga. 23 (2). We take judicial notice of the journals of each branch of the General Assembly (Stanley v. Sims, 185 Ga. 518, 195 S. E. 439), it being the duty of the court in the construction of statutes to give effect to the intention of the legislature when it is ascertainable. Thompson v. Eastern Air Lines, 200 Ga. 216, 222 (39 S. E. 2d 225); Moore v. Baldwin County, 209 Ga. 541, 545 (74 S. E. 2d 449). Compare Mosley v. Lanier, 213 Ga. 373 (2) (99 S. E. 2d 118). Events occurring during the progress of the enactment of a .statute as disclosed by the official journals of the General Assembly may be reviewed in seeking to find the intent of the legislature. 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction, §§ 5001-5016 incl.
The official journals of the House and Senate for the 1958 session of the General Assembly disclose that the act approved March 4, 1958, amending Code § 56-601, designated as House Bill No: 984, in section 2 of the bill as originally introduced and passed by the House, provided: “The legislative intent and purpose of this Act is hereby declared to be wholly remedial, and it shall apply retroactively or retrospectively to all pending suits on the bonds of -the officers herein designated.” The journals further show that the Senate upon consideration of the House bill amended -the same by striking section 2 of the bill and passed the bill as amended; and that the Senate amendment was agreed to by the House.
*519There being no basis to assume that section 2 was stricken as surplusage, the rejection of this section as contained in the bill as originally introduced is strong evidence that the legislature did not intend for the omitted matter to be effective. Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co., 283 U. S. 643 (51 Sup. Ct. 587, 75 L. ed. 1324, 79 A.L.R. 1191); Wright v. Vinton Branch of the Mountain Trust Bank of Roanoke, Virginia, 300 U. S. 440 (57 Sup. Ct. 556, 81 L. ed. 736, 112 A.L.R. 1455); Mayo v. American Agricultural Chemical Co., 101 Fla. 279 (133 So. 885); State Board of Barber Examiners v. Walker, 67 Ariz. 156 (192 Pac. 2d 723); Nelson v. Westland Oil Co., 96 Fed. Supp. 656 (2).
In our opinion the legislative history of this statute discloses an intent on the part of the General Assembly not to make the act applicable to< pending suits.
Motion for rehearing is denied.