IN THE MATTER OF THE INTERPRETATION OF SENATE BILL NO. 23, CHAPTER NO. 491, MONTANA SESSION LAWS OF 1973. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MISSOULA COUNTY, MONTANA, APPELLANT, v. J. G. “BUD” LAMOREAUX ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
No. 12980
Supreme Court of Montana
October 1, 1975
540 P.2d 975
Submitted Sept. 9, 1975.
Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, George D. Goodrich, argued and Jack L. Green II, argued, Missoula, Dennis Wood, pro se, for respondents.
MR. JUSTICE CASTLES delivered the Opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment entered in an action brought in the fourth judicial district, Missoula County, Hon. Jack L. Green presiding.
On March 13, 1973, Senate Bill No. 23 was enacted by the Forty-Third Legislative Assembly to be effective July 1, 1973. Section 1 of that bill, which is now
“Salaries of justices of the peace. The board of county commissioners shall set salaries for justices of the peace by resolution, provided that:
“(1) if the salary of the justice of the peace was determined on a fee basis for the years 1971 and 1972, he shall receive a monthly salary of not less than one-eighteenth of the total fees, civil and criminal, collected by the justice or his predecessor in office during the two (2) years, 1971 and 1972;
“(2) if the salary of the justice of the peace was determined on a nonfee basis for the years 1971 and 1972, the justice shall be paid not less than the highest salary earned by the justice or his predecessor for the years 1971 and 1972.”
On July 18, 1973, the Missoula county attorney commenced this action on behalf of the Missoula county commissioners seeking an interpretation of the last clause of subsection (2)
On review we are presented with the problem of interpreting this clause of
“* * * the justice shall be paid not less than the highest salary earned by the justice or his predecessor for the years 1971 and 1972.” (Emphasis added)
Appellants argue that since the adjective “highest” is grammatically incorrect when used with the conjunction “and“, this Court should substitute the comparative adjective “higher” and the disjunctive “or” or simply change the “and” to “or” and reverse the district court. They contend this is an example of a typographical error which the Court could easily correct by supplying the better English.
Respondents urge that we take the statute as we find it and apply ordinary rules of grammar to interpret it. They also assert, partly in their brief and partly in oral argument before us, that the combined salary interpretation as found by the district court makes sense in view of the salaries earned by other county officials, the entire scheme of Senate Bill No. 23, and the intent of the 1972 Montana Constitution.
Both parties and the district court recognize that the intention of the legislature controls when a statute is presented to a court for interpretation. This is a fundamental rule of statutory construction. See
We have been faced many times with inartfully drafted and confusing language such as that found in this statute. In such cases rather than attempting to glean meaning from an isolated clause or sentence, we have looked to the purpose of the whole. See Snidow v. State Board of Equalization, 93 Mont. 19, 17 P.2d 68, 18 P.2d 804; In re Takahashi‘s Estate, 113 Mont. 490, 129 P.2d 217; Bresnahan v. District Court, 127 Mont. 310, 263 P.2d 968; Home Bldg. & Loan v. Bd. of Equalization, 141 Mont. 113, 375 P.2d 312; Nice v. State, 161 Mont. 448, 507 P.2d 527.
“An Act Providing for the Minimum Number of Justices of the Peace, their Compensation, Qualifications, Terms of Office, Training and Designation as County Officers; Providing for the Collection of Fees by Justices and Improvement of their Facilities; Abolishing Fees in Criminal Actions; and Deleting References to Townships; all to Comply with Article VII, Sections 5 and 7 of the 1972 Montana Constitution * * *” (Emphasis supplied)
The Article of the 1972 Montana Constitution which this bill sought to implement had attempted to improve and modernize the justice court system. Section 5 of
With this background a brief look to the other sections of Senate Bill No. 23 should help us to clarify the first section of that enactment. (
Section 3 concerned itself with the physical improvement of the justice courts directing that such office, courtroom, clerical assistance and supplies be provided so that the court could function properly in dignified surroundings.
Section 4 modernized the structure of the justice court system by changing the former allocation of two justices per township to at least one per county, by specifying that justices of the peace were to be elected on a nonpartisan judicial ballot similar to the judges of the district court, and by providing for qualifications to be a justice of the peace as well as a training course for elected justices.
The balance of the bill contained numerous “housekeeping” revisions of the Code consistent with the elevation of justice courts to full county office status.
It is less than logical to believe that the Forty-Third Legislature would have upgraded all aspects of the justice court system excepting salary. Indeed the legislature spoke first in the bill to the salary issue. We must assume, based on the Constitution and the other sections of the bill, that the legislature intended to improve salaries also. Application of the ordinary rules of grammar to the statute section in question results in the raising of minimum salaries for nonfee justices of the peace to a decent level comparable to that received by other county elected officials. This interpretation insures the significant improvement of the justice court system as contemplated by the 1972 Montana Constitution and
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE JAMES T. HARRISON, and MR. JUSTICES JOHN C. HARRISON, DALY and HASWELL concur.