Court Opinion

ID: 9864426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 13:05:20.464426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:06.440866
License: Public Domain

Butler, J., (concurring). I agree to the opinion written by Mr. Justice Mehaffy, but go further and think the court should have defined the powers of the association. I take this view because, while the opinion does not warrant it, associations formed under act No. 632 of the Acts of 1921 may assume that they are authorized to do a general banking business. This position, if taken, is not warranted by any reasonable interpretation of that act when it is viewed in the light of, and considered in connection with, contemporaneous legislation. At the session of the General Assembly at which act No. 632, supra, was passed, the Legislature, by act No. 496, covered the entire field of the control of banks and the manner in which their affairs might be conducted, and, as there was no reference made to this legislation by act No. 632, which was approved only three days later, it is clear that the Legislature did not intend to clothe cooperative associations with the power to carry on the business intrusted to banks. In arriving at the meaning of any statute, it should be placed beside other relevant statutes giving it a meaning and effect derived from the combined whole (State v. Sewell, 45 Ark. 387), for the Legislature must be presumed to have had knowledge of existing statutes and to have had reference thereto when dealing with any subject embraced in prior acts and intend the provisions of later statutes to be read in the light of the provisions of the former relating to the same subject. This is especially true where the statutes were enacted at the same session of the Legislature. Ex parte Trapnall, 6 Ark. 9; Town of Benton v. Willis, 76 Ark. 443, 88 S. W. 1000; Lonoke County v. Reed, 122 Ark. 111, 182 S. W. 563. The nature of the association, its membership, voting-power and manner in which its income is to be disbursed is pointed out in the opinion. The act itself defines cooperative associations as “a business concern that distributes the net profits of its business by: First, by the payment of a fixed dividend upon its stock; the remainder of its profits are :pro-rated to its several stockholders upon their purchases from, or sales to, said concern, or both such purchases and sales. ’ ’ By section 2, it is provided that twenty or more persons may form the association “for the purpose of conducting any agricultural, dairy, mercantile, banking*, mining, manufacturing, or mechanical business on the cooperative plan.” When the definition quoted is read in connection with the grant of power, the real reason and purpose of the act is better understood. This was to give groups of individuals an opportunity to co-ordinate their efforts, provide for collective bargaining and share the profits of the enterprise conducted. The conduct of any of the acts named is ancillary and in aid of this main purpose, and the right to pursue and perform these is not unlimited but is to be confined within the bounds of the association’s membership where such acts comprise the engaging in any business clothed with a public interest, and, as such, subject to regulation and supervision by the State. Banks are such institutions over which, by appropriate legislation, the State had exercised its powers of regulation prior to the passage of act No. 632. Therefore, the banking business mentioned in that act must be deemed to be different from the business conducted by a bank properly so-called and of a special and restricted character limited solely to the membership from which perhaps it may receive deposits and make loans to the members, but has no power to engage in the business of a bank which deals with the public generally and which was created and regulated by existing laws. I am authorized to state that Johnson, C. J., joins in the views I have expressed.