Court Opinion

ID: 9615531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:38:02.313313+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:39.295360
License: Public Domain

LAVENDER, Justice,
dissenting:
It seems to me the sole issue presented on appeal is whether the action against Holley Carburetor was “commenced” within two years within the meaning of 12 O.S. §§ 97, 151 and 155, pertinent parts of which are as follows:
Sec. 97. “An action shall be deemed commenced, ... at the date of the summons which is served on (each defendant).... An attempt to commence an action shall be deemed equivalent to the commencement thereof, ... when the party faithfully and diligently endeavors to procure a service; but such attempt must be followed ... if service is sought to be procured by mailing, by a receipt of certified mail containing summons within sixty (60) days.”
Sec. 151. “A civil action is deemed commenced by filing in the office of the court clerk of the proper court a petition and by the clerk’s issuance of summons thereon_ Where service is sought to be effected by mailing, the action shall be deemed commenced when the envelope containing summons, addressed to the defendant ... is deposited in the United States mail with postage prepaid for forwarding by certified mail with a request for a return receipt from addressee only.”
Sec. 155. “ * * *
(c) ... If the summons is to be served by mail, the clerk shall effect its mailing within five (5) days from the date it was issued.
* * * ”
The quoted portion of §§ 97 and 151 became effective on the same date, February 17, 1969. The quoted portion of § 155 became effective on July 1, 1973.
Rules of statutory construction applicable to § 97 and § 151 are summarized in O’Brien Packing Co. v. Martin, 172 Okl. 157, 44 P.2d 72 (1935) as follows:
“... statutes in pari materia, passed at the same session of the Legislature, are to be construed together as one act, if it is possible to give effect to both. (Citations omitted).... Statutes passed by the Legislature on the same day or at the same session, when related to the same subject, are presumed to be actuated by the same policy and should be construed together so that all may stand. (Citations omitted).... and all statutes must be construed in accordance with the legislative intent. (Citations omitted). Later expressions by this Court have consistently confirmed the foregoing rules. Johnson v. Ward, Okl., 541 P.2d 182 (184) (1975); Bankers Union Life Ins. Co. v. Read, 182 Okl. 103, 77 P.2d 26 (29) (1938).”
Since § 97 and § 151 were enacted at the same session of the Legislature, and nei*136ther purports to supercede or modify the other, and since no inconsistency between the two appears from the clear meaning of their content when considered together, I would conclude that in the case at bar, the action was commenced when the court clerk deposited the summons in the United States mail with postage prepaid for forwarding by certified mail with a request for a return receipt from addressee only. This occurred on the day after the statute of limitations had run.
Next consider the effect of the enactment of § 155(c) has upon the priorly enacted § 97 and § 151, through the inclusion of the words: “If the summons is to be served by mail, the clerk shall effect its mailing within five (5) days from the date it was issued.”
In City of Sand Springs v. Dept. of Public Welfare, Okl., 608 P.2d 1139 (1151) (1980), this Court again recognized and applied established rules of statutory construction in the following language:
“... repeals by implication are not favored and all statutory provisions must be given effect if possible; unless the conflict so demonstrated is irreconciliable the earlier provisions will not be repealed by the later enactment. (Citation omitted). Nothing short of irreconciliable conflict between statutes accomplishes a repeal by implication. (Citations omitted). Where such a conflict exists, the later modifies the earlier, even where both sections were enacted into the same official codification. (Citation omitted). Where the statutes conflict in part, repeal is not entire unless the later statute is so broad in scope, clear and explicit that its terms demonstrate it was intended to cover the whole subject matter, displacing the prior enactment, or so plainly repugnant that they cannot stand together. (Citation omitted). Where statutes conflict in part, the one last passed, which is the later declaration of the Legislature, should prevail, superseding and modifying the former statute only to the extent of such conflict. (Citation omitted).”
Upon applying the foregoing rules of statutory construction, I find no irreconciliable conflict in the three sections. Neither does § 155(c) suggest a repeal by implication of either of the two earlier sections. The clear meaning of the quoted words, I would hold, is that the court clerk is statutorily afforded five days from the date of the issuance of a summons in which to post it for mailing in the United States mails. So long as the court clerk posts the summons for mailing within the five days, the clerk has performed his statutory duty. Whatever recourse is available to the plaintiff who waits until the eve of the running of the statute in which to elect to serve a summons by mailing rests upon his vigilance in inducing a timely mailing by the clerk, or in the Legislature.
For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I am authorized to state that HAR-GRAVE and OPALA, JJ., concur in the views herein expressed.