Court Opinion

ID: 9656097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:35:30.2651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:28.180592
License: Public Domain

Frank T. Gallagher, Justice
(dissenting).
I cannot agree with the majority here. The only legal issue raised by the state on appeal is whether M. S. A. 215.19 authorized the public examiner to audit the books, records, accounts, and affairs of the village of Pierz upon the petition of freeholders. In my opinion it did not.
In 1913 the legislature passed L. 1913, c. 555, an act to continue and provide for a department of public examiner and extending and defining his powers and duties. Section 8 of that act4 (Mason St. 1927, § 3281, coded as M. S. A. 215.14), with which we are here concerned, extended the powers and duties of the examiner to school districts, towns, and villages of the state. It also provided that the public examiner “shall conduct an examination” upon a petition of freeholders, as provided for therein. L. 1929, c. 259, § 1, upon which the state relies for its authority to collect from the village, coded as § 215.19, did not contain the authority for a compulsory examination on a freeholders’ petition contained in § 3281. Rather, it appears to me that L. 1929, c. 259, § 1, is not a fully operative and self-contained statute without reference to G. S. 1923, c. 18, and Mason St. 1927, c. 18. As I see it, an examination of the opening sentence of L. 1929, c. 259, § 1, establishes its dependence upon the existing laws governing the public examiner when it provides for a “petition for an ex-aminaton under the provisions of Chapter 18, General Statutes 1923, of the books, records * * It therefore appears to me that § 215.19 was not intended to confer any new authority or impose *44any new duty upon the examiner, as that authority and duty were already in the statute (§ 3281), but that its purpose was to change the number of petitioners required and set up a rule of evidence as to the petition provided for in § § 3280 and 3281.
In the 1945 revision of the statutes it was deemed by the legislature that certain portions of c. 259 superseded a part of § 3281, and the following language was omitted from the latter:
“provided, that the public examiner shall conduct an examination of the records of any such town, village, or school district on the petition of ten freeholders thereof, and the town, village, or school receiving such examination shall pay the state for the same at the rate of f 5 per day and expenses.”
The trial court concluded that the authority in law for the examination and audit of the books and records of villages upon freeholders’ petition was terminated by the deletion above referred to and ordered judgment for the village. It is my opinion under the facts and circumstances here that the trial court was correct and should be affirmed.
At the time of the oral argument the question was raised by this court as to whether M. S. A. 215.25, set out in the majority opinion, preserved or restored the rights, powers, and duties of the public examiner which were conferred upon the former public examiner by Mason St. 1927, §§ 3280 and 3281, and Mason St. 1940 Supp. § 3286-1. Supplemental briefs were requested by the court and were presented by both parties on this point.
In its supplemental brief the state claims that the enactment of § 215.25 provided an alternative reason why the public examiner had the mandatory duty to make the audit for the village and that, if § 215.19 did not authorize the public examiner’s audit of the village records, § 215.25 did authorize it.
The village denies that the inclusion of § 215.25 in the 1945 revision had the effect of preserving or restoring the rights, powers, and duties which were conferred upon the former public examiner by Mason St. 1927, § § 3280 and 3281, or claimed to have been conferred by Mason St. 1940 Supp. § 3286-1.
*45It is my opinion that the inclusion of § 215.25 in the 1945 revision did not have the effect of restoring or preserving the rights, powers, and duties which were conferred upon the former public examiner by Mason St. 1927, §§ 3280 and 3281.
The offices of the state board of audit and the former public examiner were abolished by the reorganization act of 1925 (L. 1925, c. 426, art. 3, § 2, and art. 18, § 1), and the powers and duties of the public examiner were transferred to the state comptroller. The office of the comptroller was abolished by the 1939 reorganization act (L. 1939, c. 431, art. 2, § 22) and certain of his powers were transferred by art. 4, § 9 (§ 215.04), which reads:
“The powers and duties of the board of audit and of the former public examiner, heretofore transferred to, vested in, and imposed upon the comptroller, are hereby transferred to, vested in, and imposed upon the public examiner created by this act.”
These powers and duties were the powers so transferred by the 1939 reorganization act (L. 1939, c. 431, art. 4, §§ 8 and 9, coded as §§ 215.25 and 215.04). As it appears to me, they merely transferred the enumerated powers and duties to the newly created office of public examiner as they existed at the date when the reorganization act was adopted on April 22,1939, and when the 1939 reorganization act went into effect the provisions of § 8 were fully executed. The inclusion of that section in the 1945 revision could not create any new powers or duties beyond those authorized in the 1939 act without subsequent legislation in the matter, which we do not find until L. 1951, c. 185. Except for explanatory purposes, it appears to me that § 215.25 could have been omitted from the 1945 revision. Section 215.25 merely carried forward the provisions of the law as modified by amendments prior to 1939.
Section 4 of L. 1945, c. 67, adopting the 1945 revision reads:
“The laws contained and compiled in Minnesota Statutes 1945 are to be construed as continuations of the acts from which compiled and derived and not as new enactments.”

See note 2 of majority opinion.