Sadler v. Craven

Citation123 S.W. 365,93 Ark. 11
PartiesSADLER v. CRAVEN
Decision Date29 November 1909
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

Appeal from Logan Chancery Court, Northern District; J. Virgil Bourland, Chancellor; affirmed.

Affirmed.

Carmichael Brooks & Powers, for appellants.

An order of the county court for the building of a new, court house is void where there has been no levy made for that purpose. No money shall be paid out of the treasury until the same shall have been appropriated by law. Const. 1874, art 16, § 12. An appropriation cannot be used for any other purpose than that for which it was made. 85 Ark. 171. The extent and exercise of the county court's jurisdiction over the building of court houses is limited and controlled by the statutes. 4 Ark. 483; 61 Ark. 76.

Robert J. White, for appellee.

The Constitution of 1874 does not abrogate sections 1009 to 1025 Kirby's Dig. 63 Ark. 397; 68 Ark. 340; 73 Ark. 523.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

The county court of Logan County, at the October term, 1908, made an order for the erection of a new court house at Paris, the county seat, not to exceed the cost of fifty thousand dollars, and appointed a commissioner to execute the order by causing plans to be made and a contract let, subject to the approval of the court. This order was made, not by the levying court, but by the county court, presided over by the county judge. The levying court, composed of the county judge and justices of the peace, had, on a previous day, voted an appropriation of $ 2,000 for repairing the old court house.

The county court, in making the order for construction of a new court house, found that the old court house afforded insufficient room, that it was inexpedient to enlarge and repair it, that the erection of a new court house was a public necessity, that it was expedient to erect a new court house, and that the circumstances of the county would permit the levying of a tax sufficient to build it. A contract was duly let, pursuant to this order, for the erection of the new court house, and appellants, citizens and taxpayers of the county, instituted this action in the chancery court to restrain the commissioner and contractors from carrying out the order of the court. The chancellor denied the relief prayed for, and an appeal was taken to this court.

It is contended that the order of the county court is void because the levying court had made no levy of taxes nor appropriation of money to build a new court house.

The statute provides that "whenever the county court shall think it expedient to erect any of the buildings aforesaid (court house and jail), the building of which shall not be otherwise provided for, and there shall be sufficient funds in the county treasury which may be appropriated to the erection of county buildings, or which are not otherwise appropriated, or if the circumstances of the county will permit such court to levy a tax for the erection of buildings, such court may make an order for the building thereof, stating in such order the amount to be appropriated for that purpose." Kirby's Digest, § 1011.

This court has held in several cases that the statute in question was not repealed by a subsequent statute providing that "no county court or agent of any county shall hereafter make any contract on behalf of the county unless an appropriation has been previously made therefor and is wholly or in part unexpended." Kirby's Digest, § 1502; Durritt v. Buxton, 63 Ark. 397, 39 S.W. 56; Hilliard v. Bunker, 68 Ark. 340, 58 S.W. 362; Bowman v. Frith, 73 Ark. 523, 84 S.W. 709.

The case of Bowman v. Frith, supra, is identical with the present case on the facts....

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Mackey v. McDonald
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 4 Febrero 1974
    ...has been held applicable to the counties. Nevada County v. News Printing Company, 139 Ark. 502, 206 S.W. 899. See also, Sadler v. Craven, 93 Ark. 11, 123 S.W. 365. The specified order for making appropriations by the quorum court is set out in § 17--409 as 1. To defray the lawful expenses o......
  • McLellan v. Pledger
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 22 Octubre 1945
    ...allowing a claim or salary warrant under either of the acts. Appellees cite Bowman v. Frith, 73 Ark. 523, 84 S.W. 709; and Sadler v. Craven, 93 Ark. 11, 123 S.W. 365, to sustain their contention. But in Bowman v. Frith it was pointed out that a taxpayer could not proceed in equity to preven......
  • McLellan v. Pledger
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 22 Octubre 1945
    ...In the case at bar it was alleged that the legislative acts were void; so the Fones case applies, rather than the Bowman case. Sadler v. Craven, supra, an attack on an allegedly improvident contract, and not one claimed to be void. In short, the cases cited on this point by appellees are wi......
  • Fletcher v. Lyon
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 20 Diciembre 1909
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT