Printable Format75-1706.
History: L. 1915, ch. 229, § 6; L. 1917, ch. 203, § 4; L. 1919, ch. 285, § 6; R.S. 1923, 75-1706; L. 1927, ch. 298, § 3; L. 1929, ch. 261, § 1; L. 1933, ch. 189, § 4; L. 1937, ch. 331, § 3; L. 1939, ch. 298, § 1; L. 1943, ch. 277, § 12; L. 1947, ch. 416, § 7; L. 1949, ch. 427, § 1; L. 1953, ch. 363, § 6; L. 1959, ch. 332, § 1; L. 1961, ch. 409, § 6; L. 1963, ch. 419, § 6; L. 1965, ch. 458, § 14; L. 1967, ch. 443, § 14; L. 1973, ch. 2, § 15; L. 1974, ch. 361, § 68; Repealed, L. 1997, ch. 160, § 43; September 1.
Source or prior law:
L. 1897, ch. 138, § 12; L. 1901, ch. 192, § 3; L. 1903, ch. 325,§ 5; L. 1907, ch. 222, § 11; L. 1911, ch. 199, § 3.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Cost of suit; order of distribution of fees collected. The State, ex rel., v. Railway Co., 87 K. 565, 566, 125 P. 98.
2. Grain inspector; appropriation for expenses valid. Hicks v. Davis, 97 K. 312, 313, 154 P. 1030.