Desha County v. Chicot County
Decision Date | 24 December 1904 |
Citation | 84 S.W. 625,73 Ark. 387 |
Parties | DESHA COUNTY v. CHICOT COUNTY |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chicot Chancery Court, MARCUS L. HAWKINS, Judge.
Decree modified.
Decree modified and cause remanded.
X. J Pindall end F. M. Rogers, for appellant.
Exclusive original jurisdiction of this suit is vested in the county court. 44 Ark. 225; 47 Ark. 80; Const., art. 7, § 28.
Baldy Vinson, for appellee.
Limitation does not run while there is no one capable of suing. 48 Ark 386; 42 Ark. 491; 38 Ark. 243; 16 Am. Dec. 290; 94 N.C. 231; 84 Tenn. 697; 76 Wis. 598; 37 P. 349; 26 Kan. 181; 93 Ky. 33; 42 Ark. 54; 33 Ark. 690. The act of 1899 does not violate section 28, article 7, of the Constitution. 52 Ark. 430; 58 Tex. 321; 148 U.S. 228; 51 Ark. 344; 120 U.S. 517; 33 Ark 690. The detached territory is liable to Chicot County on the compromise bonds to the amount found by the masters. 92 U.S 307; 54 Ala. 639; 33 Ark. 497; 52 Ark. 430; 35 Md. 201; 16 Mass. 76; 58 Miss. 619; 95 N.C. 189; 14 Ore. 525; 69 Tex. 177; 18 Fla. 512. The cost of suit was properly placed. 18 Ark. 202; 19 Ark. 148; 36 Ark. 333.
F. M. Rogers, for appellant in reply.
A county cannot be sued alone in any other State court, except one which sits within its own borders. 44 Ark. 229; 36 Ark. 378. The debt, being barred prior to the passage of the act of 1899, is not revived by it. 20 Am. Rep. 131; Cooley, Const. Lim. 448; Cooley, Tax. (2d Ed.), 690.
By an act entitled "An Act to change the boundary line between the counties of Chicot and Desha," approved February 10, 1879, certain portions of Chicot County were detached and added to Desha County. No part of the indebtedness of Chicot County was apportioned to Desha or to the territory attached. Afterward, by an act entitled "An act to adjust the indebtedness of Chicot County, existing on the 1st day of July, 1879, and apportion the same between said county of Chicot and that part of said county cut off from said county of Chicot, and added to the county of Desha, by 'An act entitled an act to change the boundary line between the counties of Chicot and Desha,' approved February 10, 1879, and for other purposes," approved March 19, 1881, provision was made for ascertaining the acknowledged indebtedness of Chicot County on the 10th day of February, 1879, remaining unpaid, and to apportion the same between the county of Chicot and the part thereof added to the county of Desha, and for the enforcement of the collection and payment of the same out of the territory so detached. In the preamble of the latter act is the following recital: "Whereas, there is, and was at the time of the passage of said act, litigation pending to enforce upon the county of Chicot a liability for certain bonds heretofore issued to certain railroads by the county of Chicot, which liability was at the time, and still is, denied by the county of Chicot, but which, if finally decided to be a valid indebtedness against the county of Chicot, and payment thereof enforced against said county, should be borne by said county of Chicot, and the part so cut off and added to Desha County, in proportion to the value of the taxable property of said county of Chicot and the part so cut off."
And as to indebtedness mentioned in such recital the act provided as follows:
Further provision was made by the General Assembly for the adjustment and apportionment of the disputed indebtedness of Chicot by an act entitled "An act to provide a mode of settlement of certain indebtedness due from Desha County to the county of Chicot," approved April 10, 1899. The preamble of the act is as follows:
Sections 1, 2, 3, and part of 4, of said act are as follows:
On the 10th day of August, 1899, the State of Arkansas on the relation of Chicot County instituted a suit against Desha County pursuant to the act of April 10, 1899, and alleged in its complaint as follows: On the 23d of March, 1872 "Chicot County, under authority of the act of July 23, 1868, executed and delivered on stock subscriptions to the Mississippi, Ouachita & Red River...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Foster v. Jefferson County Quorum Court
...v. Gage & Co., 82 Ark. 51, 100 S.W. 80 (1907); Doniphan Lumber Co. v. Reid, 82 Ark. 31, 100 S.W. 69 (1907); Desha County v. Chicot County, 73 Ark. 387, 84 S.W. 625 (1904); Cope v. Collins, 37 Ark. 649 (1881); Lee County v. State, 36 Ark. 276 (1880); Graham v. Parham, 32 Ark. 676 (1878). We ......
-
United States v. Paschall
...constitutional limitation is void, as has been held by the Supreme Court of the state in construing this provision. Desha County v. Chicot County, 73 Ark. 387, 84 S. W. 625; Gaither v. Gage, 82 Ark. 51, 100 S. W. 80. A judgment creditor on such warrants is not entitled to the levy of a tax ......
- Young v. Stevenson
- State ex rel. Chicot County v. Desha County