Barber v. Edwards
| Citation | 141 S.W.2d 831,200 Ark. 940 |
| Decision Date | 24 June 1940 |
| Docket Number | 4-6012 |
| Parties | BARBER v. EDWARDS |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
Appeal from Independence Chancery Court; A. S. Irby, Chancellor affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Judgment reversed and remanded.
R W. Tucker, for appellants.
S C. Knight, for appellees.
Appellant is resident, landowner and taxpayer in Big Bottom Fencing District of Independence county. He brought this action as a class suit, for the benefit of himself and all other taxpayers therein, against appellees, who are the Board of Assessors and pound keeper of said district, to recover certain sums which, it was alleged, had illegally and fraudulently been paid by the district to Edwards, Sliger and T. D. Barber, the pound keeper and other illegal expenditures.
Appellees answered admitting their status and that the payments had been made as charged. They alleged that certain territory had been added to the district by order of the county court in 1936, pursuant to law, and that the parties named were entitled to the increase in pay, and prayed a dismissal of the complaint for want of equity.
The case was submitted on an agreed statement of facts substantially as follows: That the district was created by special act of the legislature and that approximately 15 square miles of territory was added to the district by order of the county court in 1936; that beginning March 15, 1937, the district paid the pound keeper $ 45 per month which was $ 15 per month more than fixed by the special act creating the district and acts amendatory thereof; that W. C. Edwards a member of the Board had been paid an additional $ 18 per year, or a total of $ 36 per year, for acting as secretary of the board and keeping a record of all its transactions; that Sliger a member of the board had been paid $ 106.50 for services in the construction of the fence around the new territory annexed to the district in 1936; that the sum of $ 375.56 belonging to the old district had been used for the benefit of the annex; and that the pound keeper performed his duties in the annexed territory.
Trial resulted in a decree for appellees. The court held that, while it may be true under the original act, Edwards and Barber could not legally make a contract with the board for more pay, still the services for which overpayment is claimed have been rendered, the district has received the benefits and that it is not disputed that real benefits accrued to it and that it would, therefore, be inequitable to require a repayment to the district in such circumstances, since the amount received for the work was fair and reasonable and no proof of fraud; that the same thing is true as to Sliger. He did work in constructing the fence around the new territory annexed. It is not claimed he was paid too much or that there was any fraud in connection therewith. Only that he was a member of the board and could not contract with himself.
Appellant first says the order of the county court annexing 15 square miles of territory to a district created by special act is illegal and void. We do not agree. Section 5786 of Pope's Digest is a general act and authorizes the annexation of "lands near or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gipson v. Crawfis
...paid the individual, on a contract forbidden by statute.' Citing the Tallman case, supra, and other cases. The case of Barber v. Edwards, 200 Ark. 940, 141 S.W.2d 831, 832, dealt with a fencing district which had been enlarged and the Board of Assessors sought to increase the salary of the ......
-
Helena-West Helena School Dist. v. Fluker
...compensation and his fixed salary was the full compensation he was entitled to receive. See id. Prior to Goode, in Barber v. Edwards, 200 Ark. 940, 141 S.W.2d 831 (1940), this court determined that the salaries of both the secretary of the board of assessors and the pound keeper were fixed ......