Committee for Utility Trimming, Inc. v. Hamilton, 86-236

• Decision Date: 10 November 1986
• Docket Number: No. 86-236,86-236
• Citation: 290 Ark. 283,718 S.W.2d 933
• Parties: COMMITTEE FOR UTILITY TRIMMING, INC., Appellant, v. Sylvia HAMILTON, County Clerk, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 933

718 S.W.2d 933

290 Ark. 283

COMMITTEE FOR UTILITY TRIMMING, INC., Appellant, v. Sylvia HAMILTON, County Clerk, Appellee.

No. 86-236.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Nov. 10, 1986.

R. David Lewis, Little Rock, for appellant.

Robert D. Ridgeway, Jr., Hot Springs, for appellee.

HICKMAN, Justice.

This case was advanced and we decided to affirm the trial court on Friday, October 31, 1986, with the opinion to follow. This is the opinion.

The appellant collected signatures to get a proposal on the general election ballot in Garland County called the Garland County Electric Initiative. The ballot title reads:

An ordinance revoking the monopolistic privileges and exclusive franchise granted to a private corporation; To establish a county administrative board to act as a body politic with corporate powers to acquire and operate the means of producing and distributing hydroelectric power in Garland County, Arkansas; And for other purposes.

Sylvia Hamilton, the county clerk and appellee, rejected the petition on September 8, 1986, because of forgery of some names, non-registration of some signatories and illegibility of some signatures which reduced the number of signatures below the required amount.

The appellant filed a petition for review in the Garland County Chancery Court, and the appellee and intervenor, Arkansas Power and Light, challenged the capacity of the appellant to sue. It was not disputed that the Committee for Utility Trimming, Inc., had not been incorporated according to law. The trial judge ruled, quite properly, that a corporation not in existence could not initiate a law suit. That is the law. In Sulphur Springs Recreational Park v. City of Camden, 247 Ark. 713, 447 S.W.2d 844 (1969), we affirmed a trial court's dismissal of a complaint, because the plaintiff's corporate charter was not in existence when the suit was filed.

Corporate existence begins in Arkansas when the articles of incorporation are filed with the secretary of state. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 64-117 (Repl.1980). A suit must be instituted by a person, natural or artificial. Fausett & Co. v. Bogard, 285 Ark. 124, 685 S.W.2d 153 (1985). Neither existed here. The appellant did not exist as a corporation when it filed this suit. The appellant attempted to correct this oversight too late--after the time had expired for contesting a rejection of a petition.

The appellant argues that the court should have permitted the appellant to proceed as a partnership or a de facto corporation; also it is argued that the 15-day time limit in Ark.Stat.Ann. § 17-4011 (9) (Repl.1980) is unconstitutional in...