Board of Improvements v. McManus

Decision Date21 March 1891
Citation15 S.W. 897
PartiesBOARD OF IMPROVEMENTS v. McMANUS.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, Sebastian county; JOHN S. LITTLE, Judge.

Sandels & Warner, for appellant. Mr. McManus, pro se.

HEMINGWAY, J.

The only question before us is as to the sufficiency of an answer to a petition for mandamus. The petition alleged that the petitioner had a judgment against the board, and prayed that it be required to issue to him a warrant on its treasurer for the amount thereof. The answer was, in effect, that there was no money in the treasury of the board; that all its possible assessments for a stated number of years to come had been pledged to other creditors; and that an assessment had been levied for the year next thereafter, out of which its other debts would be paid. The answer was adjudged insufficient, and, the respondent declining to amend, the court ordered that it issue the warrant in accordance with the prayer of the petition. The respondent appealed. As a general rule the writ will only be issued where the petitioner has a legal right, is entitled to a specific remedy to enforce it, and the officer whose duty it is to afford that remedy withholds it. Mansf. Dig. § 4569; Wood, Mand. p. 27; People v. Railroad Co., 55 Ill. 95. Did the petition and answer disclose a right in the petitioner for which the respondent was bound in law to afford a remedy which it withheld? In other words, did the law authorize the petitioner to demand, and require the respondent to issue, a warrant on an empty treasury? The statute contains no provision that warrants shall issue upon the allowance of all demands against boards of improvements, as it does with reference to allowances against the county. Mansf. Dig. § 1415. There is no express requirement that any warrant shall issue, but it is inferential from the provision that the treasurer shall pay out no money except upon a warrant. Id. § 865. This seems intended to promote an orderly administration of the affairs of the board, and not to contemplate the issue of warrants for use by their holder in anticipation of funds to pay them, as is the case with county warrants. Worthen v. Roots, 34 Ark. 356. Board of improvements warrants are not receivable for its assessments, for the act expressly provides that assessments may be pledged by the board to borrow money. Mansf. Dig. § 872. The creditor of the board is entitled to a warrant only as a means to collect his claim, and whenever the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Trotter v. Frank P. Gates & Company
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 29, 1932
    ... ... necessary ... 7 ... Board ... acting under limitations named in statute prescribing ... conditions and methods must show ... 9 ... STATUTES ... Statute ... appropriating funds for improvements at university, providing ... for personnel of building commission, and prescribing its ... duties ... Lisk v. Otoe County, 10 Neb ... 19, 4 N.W. 258; Board of Improvement v. McManus, 54 ... Ark. 446, 15 S.W. 897; Sherman v. Smith, 12 Tex ... Civil Appeals, 580, 35 S.W. 294; ... ...
  • Ghent v. State Use School Districts
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 15, 1934
    ... ... remedy to enforce the same, and, under the rule announced in ... Board of Improvement v. McManus, 54 Ark ... 446 at 446-48, 15 S.W. 897, it was entitled to a writ of ... ...

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