Buchanan v. Farmer

• Decision Date: 13 March 1916
• Docket Number: 242
• Parties: BUCHANAN v. FARMER
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

184 S.W. 33

122 Ark. 562

BUCHANAN v. FARMER

No. 242

Supreme Court of Arkansas

March 13, 1916

Appeal from Garland Circuit Court; Scott Wood, Judge; reversed and dismissed.

Judgment reversed, claim of appellee dismissed.

Gibson Witt, for appellant.

If there is a liability at all in this case, it could be created only by express contract. No recovery could be had on a quantum meruit. An appropriation to pay for legal expenses was necessary; none was made. It was the duty of the prosecuting attorney to bring the suit for the county and it was an abuse of the discretion of the county court to employ an attorney and pay him. There was really no liability by the county. Kirby's Digest, § 1499, as amended by Acts 1909; 34 Ark. 369; 26 Id. 37; 7 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2 ed.) 941, 945-6; Kirby's Digest, §§ 6392-3-5; 47 N.E. 829.

Chas Jacobson, for appellee.

The County court has the authority to employ counsel where the interests of the county demand it. No previous appropriation was necessary. The contract was made in good faith; the services were rendered and the contract does not contravene section 9, Acts of 1875. 73 Ark. 523; 63 Id. 399; 93 Id. 11; 119 Ark. 567; 53 S.W. 476. No abuse of discretion is shown.

OPINION

HART, J.

This appeal involves the right of the county court to make an allowance to T. P. Farmer for legal services rendered by him in behalf of Garland County. The facts are as follows:

The General Assembly at its 1911 session passed an act creating the eighteenth judicial circuit, composed of the counties of Garland and Montgomery. The act provided that two-thirds of the salaries of the judge and prosecuting attorney should be paid by Garland County, by order of the county court, and the remaining one-third of the salaries should be paid in the same manner as salaries of other judges and prosecuting attorneys.

This court held that under our Constitution the salaries of circuit judges must be paid by the State, and the act creating the eighteenth judicial circuit, insofar as it imposed the payment of two-thirds of the salary upon one county in the circuit was invalid. See Cotham v Coffman, 111 Ark. 108, 163 S.W. 1183. That opinion was delivered January 19, 1914. At that time Cotham had served as circuit judge under said act for twenty-nine months and had been paid $ 4,866.46 by orders of the county court of Garland County.

On January 15, 1915, the county court of Garland County entered into a written contract with T. P. Farmer, an attorney of Hot Springs, in which he was employed to recover back the amount paid to Judge Cotham, and it was agreed to pay him 25 per cent. of the amount. On February 27, 1915, the claim of T. P. Farmer, based on said contract, was allowed in the sum of $ 1,216.61, and county warrants were issued to him for that amount. S. A. Buchanan, a citizen and tax payer of Garland County, was allowed to become a party to the action and appealed to the circuit court from the order of allowance. The circuit court set aside the order of allowance and remanded the cause to the county court without prejudice to Farmer filing his claim upon a quantum meruit. Thereafter the county court allowed his claim in the sum of $ 750 and Buchanan again appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court allowed the claim in the sum of $ 500, and from the judgment rendered Buchanan prosecuted an appeal to this court.

The testimony of several witnesses was taken upon the question of whether or not the amount allowed Farmer was a reasonable compensation for the legal services rendered by him, but the views we shall hereinafter express renders it unnecessary for us to abstract the testimony on this point.

After his contract of employment with the county court, Farmer went to see Judge Cotham about the matter. Judge Cotham stated to him that if the State would make an appropriation for the salary already earned by him, that he would pay back the amount received from Garland County, otherwise that he would not do so without suit.

An appropriation bill was introduced and passed by the Legislature, appropriating the sum of $ 4,866.46 to the payment of the salary of Judge Cotham in lieu of what had been paid him by Garland County.

Farmer testified that he procured the passage of this bill, or as he expressed it, lobbied it through the Legislature at a cost of $ 125 to himself. He said that the amount expended by him was for legitimate expenses. After Judge Cotham received the money from the State he paid back to Garland County the amount he had received from it as before stated.

The prosecuting attorney resided in the city of Hot Springs but was not asked to represent the county in the matter and did not do so. He was not asked to represent the county in the matter but said, that in his opinion, no suit against Judge Cotham was necessary. It may be fairly inferred from the record that the prosecuting attorney had time to have brought the suit had he been requested by the county court to do so.

Section 6392 of Kirby's Digest provides that each prosecuting attorney shall commence and...