Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Dodge
Decision Date | 28 November 1932 |
Docket Number | 4-2888 |
Parties | ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. DODGE |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Prohibition to Pulaski Chancery Court; Frank H. Dodge Chancellor; writ denied.
Writ denied.
Hal L Norwood, Attorney General and Walter L. Pope, Assistant, for petitioner.
Coleman & Riddick, for respondent.
The respondent has made a concise statement of the case, which we adopt and set out as follows:
It is conceded that, if the petitioners are correct in the position taken, and that the court improperly overruled the demurrer, prohibition is the proper remedy. Section 4, art. 7, of the Constitution; Monette Road Imp. Dist. v. Dudley, 144 Ark. 169, 222 S.W. 59; Roberts v. Tatum, 171 Ark. 148, 283 S.W. 45; Ark. State Highway Commission v. Dodge, 181 Ark. 539, 26 S.W.2d 879. It is insisted by the petitioner that this is a suit against the State, differing in essential particulars from Ark. State Highway Commission v. Dodge, supra, and that this suit cannot be maintained because of § 20, art. 5, of the Constitution, which provides: "The State of Arkansas shall never be made a defendant in any of her courts."
It is secondly insisted that, even though the suit might be maintained, the State is under no liability to Lynch & Company, and that, if there is a moral obligation, the General Assembly is the only source of relief. It seems to us that a consideration and discussion of the second point raised would at this time be premature and improper. The question we should now determine is, has the court below jurisdiction to hear and determine the case? and, if so, the question of liability would be first for its decision. Therefore, we proceed to a consideration of the question whether the suit can be maintained against the petitioner.
In Ark. State Highway Comm. v. Dodge, supra, where the right to maintain a suit against the Highway Commission was upheld, the case of Grable v. Blackwood, 180 Ark. 311, 22 S.W.2d 41, was cited in support of that holding. That was a suit brought against the State Highway Commission to enforce the payment of outstanding indebtedness incurred prior to January 1, 1927, against a road improvement district under act No. 153 of the Acts of 1929, which provided for the ascertainment of valid outstanding indebtedness incurred prior to the date mentioned against any road district, and for the payment thereof by the Highway Commission out of appropriations provided for the payment of road district bonds and interest obligations. Act No. 153 and the right of the plaintiffs to maintain the action was attacked on various constitutional grounds, but § 20, art. 5, was not invoked. It was held that the act did not violate the Constitution, and that the suit might be maintained against the Highway Commission. The case of Urquhart v. State, 180 Ark. 937, 23 S.W.2d 963, was also cited in the majority opinion in support of the conclusion reached by the writer. That case was really an issue as to the extent of the liability of the State for interest upon a contract to purchase a State convict farm and the sufficiency of the appropriation to discharge the obligation, when its extent was adjudged by the courts of Pulaski County, the agencies created for that purpose. The following quotation was made from Urquhart v. State, supra: "The Legislature itself might have ascertained the amount, both of principal and interest, and have made an appropriation accordingly, but it elected to constitute another agency to make this finding of fact, and made an appropriation in what was assumed to be a sufficient amount to pay both the principal and interest, and, under the remittitur which has been entered, the appropriation is sufficient," and the court said: "It is true that suit was brought by the State, as the act provided it should be, but the act also provided that the State's vendor might litigate his claim for interest, and that either party should have the right to appeal from an unfavorable decision."
Mr. Justice SMITH and Mr. Justice MEHAFFY adopted the reasoning of Mr. Justice GRAVES in the case of State, etc., v. Bates, 317 Mo. 696, 296 S.W. 418, and quoted with approval from that opinion as follows: "
The conclusion was that the Highway Commission, as created and functioning, was in effect a qu...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ark. v. Andrews
...merely declaratory of the general doctrine that the state may not be sued in her courts unless she has consented thereto. 186 Ark. 640, 646, 55 S.W.2d 71, 73 (1932), overruled in part by Ark. Hwy. Comm'n v. Nelson Bros. , 191 Ark. 629, 87 S.W.2d 394 (1935). Thus, subsequent to the adoption ......
-
Cargile v. New York Trust Co.
...These decisions left the matter as to whether such a suit as this could be maintained in grave doubt. Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Dodge, 186 Ark. 640, 55 S.W.(2d) 71; Bull v. Ziegler, 186 Ark. 477, 54 S.W.(2d) 283; Baer v. Arkansas State Highway Commission, 185 Ark. 590, 48 S.W.(2d......
-
State ex rel. O'Connor v. Dist. Court in & for Shelby Cnty., 42585.
...v. Holtkamp, 330 Mo. 608, 51 S.W.(2d) 13;Russell v. Taylor, 121 Tex. 450, 49 S.W.(2d) 733;Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Dodge, 186 Ark. 640, 55 S.W.(2d) 71;Hewitt v. Justice Court, 131 Cal. App. 439, 21 P.(2d) 641;Hewitt v. State, 108 Fla. 335, 146 So. 578;State ex rel. Cone v. Bruce......
-
Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Nelson Brothers
... 87 S.W.2d 394 191 Ark. 629 ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. NELSON BROTHERS 4-4026 Supreme Court of Arkansas November 4, 1935 ... Appeal ... from Pulaski Chancery Court; Frank H. Dodge, Chancellor; ... reversed ... Suit by ... Nelson Brothers against the Arkansas State Highway ... Commission ... From a ... decree for plaintiffs, defendant has appealed ... Decree ... reversed and case dismissed ... ...