City of Harrison v. Boone County, 5-3260
| Decision Date | 11 May 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-3260,5-3260 |
| Citation | 238 Ark. 113,378 S.W.2d 665 |
| Parties | CITY OF HARRISON, Appellant, v. BOONE COUNTY, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Bill F. Doshier, Harrison, for appellant.
Bruce Bennett, Atty. Gen., by John P. Gill, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
This is a suit by Boone county to enforce a contract by which it leased certain county property to the city of Harrison. The city defended the case upon the ground that the contract was invalid in its inception and imposed no binding obligation upon the city. The chancellor upheld the contract and accordingly awarded the county a judgment for past-due rentals. We think the court was right.
In 1949 the county owned a rectangular block of land within the city, the tract being occupied by the courthouse. The outer ten feet along all four sides of the block was separated from the rest of the tract by a curbing. This ten-foot strip had been paved for a number of years and was used for parking and as a street. The outer edge of the strip abutted city streets on all four sides.
In April of 1949 the city council adopted an ordinance providing for the installation of parking meters within the city. At the same time the council approved an oral motion
Thereafter the mayor and city recorder executed a contract with the county, by which the city leased the strip upon the terms recited in the ordinance. The lease was to remain in force as long as the strip was used by the city for street purposes. The contract was duly approved by an order of the county court. The city installed parking meters along the curbing of the courthouse square and accounted to the county for one half of the net revenues until 1962. The city then took the position that the agreement was void and refused to make further payments. It insists, however, that it is entitled to maintain the meters upon the county property and to keep the entire revenue for itself.
We are of the opinion that the city is legally and morally bound by its contract. The city relies primarily upon Ark.Stat.Ann. § 19-3801 (Repl. 1956), which provides that the city council shall have the care, supervision, and control...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of North Little Rock v. Vogelgesang
...may be bound by the terms of contracts entered into by it in the same manner as private corporations or citizens. Harrison v. Boone County, 238 Ark. 113, 378 S.W.2d 665 (1964). The right to accumulate up to 30 days sick leave was a part of the ordinances of the city of North Little Rock whe......
-
City of Dover v. City of Russellville
...has the power to acquire, hold, and possess real property. Ark.Code Ann. § 14-54-101(3) (Repl.1998). See also City of Harrison v. Boone County, 238 Ark. 113, 378 S.W.2d 665 (1964). Further, a municipal corporation may sell property even though sale is not expressly provided for in Ark. Code......
-
City of Benton v. Powers, CA
...in the orderly operation of the utilities and in accepting those benefits the city ratified the contract. City of Harrison v. Boone County, 238 Ark. 113, 378 S.W.2d 665 (1964); Day v. City of Malvern, 195 Ark. 804, 114 S.W.2d 459 (1938); Forrest City v. Orgill, 87 Ark. 389, 112 S.W. 891 In ......
-
Sartor v. Cole
...and authority to enter into an employment contract with Sartor for the position of chief of police. See City of Harrison v. Boone Cnty. , 238 Ark. 113, at 114, 378 S.W.2d 665, 666 (1964) ; cf. Ark. Code Ann. § 14-58-303(a). There are no provisions, cases, or prohibitions that would prevent ......