Campbell v. Little Rock School Dist.

• Decision Date: 16 November 1953
• Docket Number: No. 5-115,5-115
• Citation: 222 Ark. 615,262 S.W.2d 267
• Parties: CAMPBELL, County Judge, v. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 267

262 S.W.2d 267

222 Ark. 615

CAMPBELL, County Judge, v. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. et al.

No. 5-115.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Nov. 16, 1953.

Tom Downie and John T. Jernigan, Little Rock, for appellant.

Phillip Carroll and Rose, Meek, House, Barron & Nash, Little Rock, for appellees.

GRIFFIN SMITH, Chief Justice.

Little Rock School District was joined by a taxpaying citizen in petitioning circuit court for an order requiring Arch Campbell as county judge to review and approve or reject a petition filed pursuant to provisions of Act No. 10 of the extraordinary session of the Fifty-Eighth General Assembly, approved May 3, 1951.

The Act undertakes to vest in the electors of each county power to authorize the employment of appraisers, abstractors, and such other persons as may be needed, 'to appraise all real property, both urban and rural, and/or personal property within their county for the purpose of making such appraisals available to the county assessor and equalization board as an aid and guide to such officials in their work of assessing and equalizing property values for ad valorem tax purposes.'

The machinery for putting the plan in motion is a petition signed by ten percent of those voting for circuit clerk in the preceding general election. This petition is filed with the county clerk for review by the county court. The court's duties in examining the petition are quite similar to those delegated to the secretary of state under Amendment No. 7 to the constitution. If approval is certified an order must be entered directing three outstanding property owners of the county, to be named in the order, to forthwith enter into negotiations and conditionally contract for the employment of such qualified appraiser or appraisers, abstracters, and such other persons as may be needed to appraise the property nder consideration. Such contract of appraisal shall be for a sum certain, together with all other terms and conditions of the contract.

This contract must be in writing and signed by the parties, but it does not become binding unless approved by a majority of the county's electors who have a right to express themselves in a special election.

Within thirty days from the time this conditional contract is filed with the county clerk--where it shall remain, subject to inspection--the county court is directed to enter an order submitting the question to the people. This election shall be not less than thirty nor more than sixty days from the date of the court's order.

Judge Campbell declined to review the petition, taking the view that the Act was beyond the legislative power in requiring him to name three persons who in turn would make the conditional employment contracts and thereby bind the county for payment of such sums as might be agreed upon by persons other than the court.

Quite clearly the proceeding is not under Amendment No. 7, for the Act provides for a special election, and the number of petitioners may be 10% instead of 15% as directed by the Amendment.

Section 28 of Art. 7 of the constitution invests the county court with exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters relating to county taxes, the disbursement of money for county purposes, 'and in every other case that may be necessary to the internal improvement and local concerns of the respective counties.'

Judge Battle's opinion in Parkview Land Co. v. Road Improvement District No. 1, 92 Ark. 93, 122 S.W. 241, is to the effect that in the absence of constitutional provision respecting the manner in which jurisdiction of the county court is to be exercised, the legislature has a right to give directions. In Board of Directors of Jefferson County Bridge District v. Collier, 104 Ark. 425, 149 S.W. 66, Judge McCulloch cited Road Improvement District v. Glover, 89 Ark. 513, 117 S.W. 544, and the Parkview Land Company case. He said that the two decisions dealt with statutes authorizing construction 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 subjects have been made clearer by our decisions than that the county court has exclusive original jurisdiction to audit, settle, and direct payment of all demands against the county. Shaver v. Lawrence County,...