Burrow, County Judge v. Floyd
Decision Date | 30 November 1936 |
Docket Number | 4-4407 |
Parties | BURROW, COUNTY JUDGE, v. FLOYD |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court, Ozark District; J. O. Kincannon Judge; reversed.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Carter & Taylor, for appellants.
Mark E Woolsey, for appellees.
SMITH, J., not participating.
OPINION
On January 20, 1936, the county judge of Franklin county, Arkansas, caused to be entered upon the county court records of said county the following order, in part:
Subsequently appellees, Harve Floyd et al., citizens, taxpayers, and road overseers of certain road districts in said county filed their petition in the circuit court of Franklin county against appellant, Burrow, as county judge, and other necessary county officials, praying that a writ of certiorari be issued to the end that the county court order of January 20, 1936, and copied, supra, be reviewed and quashed.
This petition in effect alleged that the county court order of January 20, 1936, was invalid and void because not authorized by the quorum court; because it would be taking funds from one road district in said county, and expending them in another road district in said county; and because said order was entered without notice to appellees.
This county court order was also attacked by appeal to the circuit court.
In the circuit court, the appeal from this county court order and the attack by certiorari were consolidated for trial purposes, and upon hearing thereof, after testimony adduced, the circuit court found and entered an order to the following effect:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dermott Special School Dist. v. Brown
...prohibit the payment of any part of the salary of the county judge as road commissioner or any administrative expenses. Burrow v. Floyd, 193 Ark. 220, 99 S.W.2d 573. The court then recognized in Ladd v. Stubblefield, 195 Ark. 261, 111 S.W.2d 555, that it could be urged, with convincing logi......
-
Ladd v. Stubblefield
...counties, and for no other purpose." The construction placed upon this mandate, in the case of Burrow, County Judge, v. Floyd, 193 Ark. 220, 99 S.W.2d 573, was that such mandate constituted "An express upon the power of county officials in the expenditure of funds collected by authority the......
-
Campbell v. Little Rock School Dist.
...of roads by improvement districts and imposing upon county courts the obligation of maintenance. The holding in Burrow v. Floyd, 193 Ark. 220, 99 S.W.2d 573, was that circuit court in retaining control of road tax funds for future apportionment usurped the county court's jurisdiction. Few s......
-
Lawhorn v. Johnson
...expressly disapprove the above quoted holding in Burrow v. Floyd. In Ladd v. Stubblefield, 195 Ark. 261, 111 S.W.2d 555, the holding in Burrow v. Floyd was cited, but the language of the court in that was as follows: "It may be urged, with very convincing logic, that supervision by the road......