10 Mont. 533 | Mont. | 1891
This is an application for a writ of mandate to compel the State auditor to draw a warrant in favor of relator for the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars, claimed to be due and payable to him from the Slate, pursuant to the statute, to complete the payment for three hundred copies of volume 9 of the Supreme Court Reports of this State. Relator is official reporter of the Supreme Court. By provisions of statute it is his duty to edit and cause to be published reports'of the opinions and decisions of said court, in volumes of not less than six hundred pages each.
It appears by relator’s affidavit that he prepared for publication and caused to be published volume 9 of such reports; that the same contained six hundred and fifty pages; and that on the thirteenth day of January, 1891, pursuant to the provisions of statute, relator delivered to the librarian of the Montana library three hundred copies of said volume; that under the provisions of section 1993, division 5 of the Compiled Statutes, hereinafter quoted, the State auditor issued to relator a warrant for the sum of six dollars per volume for said volumes, amounting to the aggregate sum of one thousand eight hundred dollars, and for the further sum of three hundred dollars, “to cover the expenses of stationery and clerical work in the preparation” of said volume, and refused to issue relator a warrant for any greater amount.
There is no controversy as to the facts in this case. The contention is as to the true intent and meaning of said section 1993, division 5 of the Compiled Statutes, and an interpretation thereof will determine this case. Said statute, as found amended (16th Sess. Laws, p. 218), provides as follows: “Sec. 1993. The reporter of such volume shall print and bind three
What is the true intent and meaning of the legislative assembly, as manifest by the language of said statute? The statute itself prescribes a rule relative to its construction which will aid in answering this question. That rule as found in section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure declared as follows: “ In the construction of a statute or instrument the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted; and where there are several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all.” Now, there is no difficulty in giving effect to all of the “provisions and particulars” of the statute in question. In expounding the intention manifest in a statute all of its provisions should be considered. Referring to section 1992, which is a part of the same act, we find it provides that the reporter “shall publish a volume of such reports as often as there is sufficient matter to form a volume of not less than six hundred pages.” A volume of six hundred pages fills the requirement of the statute in that particular, and is undoubtedly “ a full volume,” referred to in the second pro
We think, without doubt, the relator is entitled to the further sum of one hundred and fifty dollars, under the provisions of the statute quoted. To hold otherwise would deny all force and effect to the provision for the payment for the preparation, printing, and binding of the matter contained in the volume in excess of six hundred pages. To our view, every provision and particular of the law may be given its full force and effect according to the evident intention of the legislative assembly. It is ordered that the writ of mandate issue as prayed for in the relator’s petition.
