Arkansas Highway Commission v. Dodge

• Decision Date: 07 January 1935
• Docket Number: No. 4-3784.,4-3784.
• Parties: ARKANSAS HIGHWAY COMMISSION et al. v. DODGE, Chancellor.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

77 S.W.2d 981

ARKANSAS HIGHWAY COMMISSION et al. v. DODGE, Chancellor.

No. 4-3784.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

January 7, 1935.

Rehearing Denied February 11, 1935.

Original proceeding by Arkansas Highway Commission and others for a writ of prohibition to be addressed to Frank H. Dodge, Chancellor of the Pulaski Chancery Court, restraining him from attempting to exercise any jurisdiction in a suit pending in that court.

Writ of prohibition granted.

L. R. Wood filed suit in the chancery court of Pulaski county, Ark., against the Arkansas Highway Commission and its members, and against Roy V. Leonard, treasurer of the state of Arkansas, alleging that on April 29, 1933, with the approval of the highway commission, he was employed by J. R. Rhyne, director of highways of the state of Arkansas, and also by Zass, acting as chief highway engineer, to act as a special traffic representative of the Arkansas Highway Commission to secure reductions in freight rates from the various railroad companies operating in the state, upon materials used in the construction of highways and for which highway construction contracts had been let to the contractors by the highway commission.

That pursuant to his employment, that on or about May 1, 1933, without any definite agreement as to the compensation he should receive for his services, or length of time for which he would remain in the employ of the highway commission, he entered upon the discharge of his duties under such employment, and further that he began negotiations with the officials and traffic representatives of the various railroads doing business in the state, and that he secured reductions in the matter of freight rates on materials used in the construction of the highways, saving to the highway commission $14,701.07.

His complaint contains a schedule of the several jobs under contract benefited by these rate reductions, alleged to have been made by reason of the services rendered by the plaintiff in the said suit. He alleged also that the customary or usual fee charged for such services, by those engaged in that class of work, was 50 per cent. of the reductions or savings actually secured and recovered, and that such fee or charge was reasonable. He further alleged that job No. 10190, as set forth in the complaint, was what is commonly known or denoted as a federal aid project wherein the United States government and the United States Bureau of Public Roads contributed a proportionate part of the costs of construction and that the national government and its Bureau of Public Roads, pursuant to its agreement, had paid to the defendant Roy V. Leonard, as treasurer of the state of Arkansas, $6,216, and that said sum was then in the possession of the said treasurer to the credit of said federal aid project; that of said sum of money $5,872.51 was unexpended, and that $2,936.25, one-half of said amount, should be paid to him out of funds now in the hands of the state treasurer and to the credit of said project. He alleged that the said funds in the hands of the treasurer constitutes a trust fund for those persons having claims against the state of Arkansas by virtue of work done or materials furnished upon highway projects financed in part by the federal government, and the United States Bureau of Public Roads, and that he is a member of that class of persons entitled to share in and be paid from said funds.

He alleged also that unless the treasurer was restrained from the disbursement of said funds, such funds would be disbursed to the detriment and injury of the plaintiff and he had no adequate remedy at law to recover the relief sought.

He prayed judgment against the highway commission and a temporary restraining order against the treasurer prohibiting him from disbursing or otherwise parting with the possession of the funds now in his hands to the credit of highway project No. 10190.

To this complaint a demurrer, by all of the defendants, was interposed, challenging the jurisdiction of the Pulaski chancery court. The demurrer was overruled. Thereupon, the petitioner filed in this court his petition setting up the above and foregoing facts and praying that a writ of prohibition issue against the respondent, Frank H. Dodge, restraining and prohibiting him, as such chancellor, over the court which he presides, from proceeding with the trial and from attempting to exercise any jurisdiction thereof.

Walter L. Pope, Atty. Gen., and Robt. F. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellants.

Louis Tarlowski and Chas. W. Mehaffy, both of Little Rock, for appellee.

BAKER, Justice (after stating the facts).

It can be of no benefit either to prospective or future litigants, or to the courts and attorneys of this state, to attempt a new analysis of the several cases wherein the highway commission or other state agencies, or quasi corporations, have been sued. In two opinions of this court, cases of this class have been collated, and by comparison distinguished one from the other. Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Dodge, 181 Ark. 539, 26 S.W.(2d) 879; Watson, Revenues Com'r v. Dodge, 187 Ark. 1055, 63 S.W.(2d) 993.

In the case of Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Dodge, 186 Ark. 640, 646, 55 S.W.(2d) 71, 73, we said: "It will be seen that out of the conflicting views of a majority of the several members of the court a very definite result has been reached; i. e., that in a proper case the highway commission may be sued when authority for the bringing of the suit may be found in the statute. Since this is the effect of the holding in both the Dodge Case and Baer Case [185 Ark. 590, 48 S.W.(2d) 842], supra, we think it more important that this question be definitely settled than a too firm insistence be held to our individual views, and we now hold that, in all cases where the statute authorizes a suit, it may be maintained against the highway commission whether it be thought to be a juristic person or whether section 20, art. 5, be merely declaratory of the general doctrine that the state may not be sued in her courts unless she has consented thereto."

Again in the case of Watson v. Dodge, 187 Ark. 1055, 63 S.W.(2d) 993, the above statement was quoted.

The foregoing rule, however, though seemingly such as to be applicable in all this class of litigation, is not one that has laid all the trouble, nor does it make the problems always easy of solution. The difficulty arises not from a misunderstanding of the rule, but from the application of it. There has perhaps been a lack of unanimity in the settlement of every such case.

In the case of Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Dodge, 181 Ark. 539, 541, 26 S.W.(2d) 879, 880, the court said: "The practice is well settled that, when it appears that an inferior court is about to proceed in a matter over which it is entirely without jurisdiction under any state of facts which may be shown to exist, then the Supreme Court, exercising supervisory control over the inferior court, may prevent such unauthorized proceeding by the issuance of a writ of prohibition. Monette Road Imp. Dist. v. Dudley, 144 Ark. 169, 222 S. W. 59."

The question, therefore, which we must decide in the present case is, "Is the suit of Wood v. Highway Commission and State Treasurer, really a proceeding against the Highway Commission as such, and against the State Treasurer, one for a failure to do or perform duties devolving upon them as officers, or is it a suit to force or coerce the State to make payment of an alleged claim by the plaintiff, for compensation which he has alleged he has earned?" If the suit of Wood is, in its final analysis, a suit against the state of Arkansas, then it cannot be maintained because it is in contravention of section 20, art. 5, of the Constitution of the state, which provides that: "The State of Arkansas shall never be made defendant in any of her courts."

If this case of Wood v. Commission and Treasurer were one in which there was authority, either express or arising by necessary implication, for his employment and if there were also an appropriation for the payment of such services, as may have been rendered, allocated, with equal certainty, for that purpose the problem here would be easy of solution.

Unhappily, however, this condition does not prevail. The allegations of the complaint, taken as true, together with the remedies sought, must be considered in determining whether the jurisdiction of the Pulaski chancery court is invoked for a settlement or determination of the...