Dobbs v. Holland

• Decision Date: 03 November 1919
• Docket Number: (No. 177.)
• Citation: 215 S.W. 709
• Parties: DOBBS v. HOLLAND et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

215 S.W. 709

DOBBS v. HOLLAND et al.

(No. 177.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

November 3, 1919.

Appeal from Sebastian Chancery Court; J. V. Bourland, Chancellor.

Action by A. M. Dobbs, taxpayer, against Cleveland Holland and others, to enjoin the issuance and payment of warrants out of county funds. Judgment for defendants, and the plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

A. M. Dobbs, of Hartford, in pro. per.

Earl U. Hardin, Edwin P. Hardin, Geo. W. Dodd, and Covington & Grant, all of Ft. Smith, for appellees.

SMITH, J.

This action was instituted by appellant as a taxpayer of Sebastian county, which is in the Twelfth judicial circuit, to enjoin the issuance and payment of warrants out of county funds to the prosecuting attorney for salary and expenses of his office under an act of the General Assembly approved March 22, 1919 (Acts 1919, p. 248), placing that officer on a salary and making certain allowances for the expense of his office and for the services of deputies. This suit questions the constitutionality of that act. Several grounds of attack involve the questions which have been so frequently and for so long a time settled that we do not review them again. The question of the jurisdiction of the chancery court is raised, but that question may be considered settled by the opinion in the case of Quinn v. Reed, 130 Ark. 116, 197 S. W. 15, wherein it was held that the chancery court had jurisdiction of a suit brought by a taxpayer to restrain the county judge, clerk, and treasurer from reissuing county warrants for a purpose not authorized by law.

One objection made to the act is that it creates a permanent state office in violation of article 19, § 9, of the Constitution. This objection is met by the statement that the act does not create a new office, for the office of prosecuting attorney is created by the Constitution itself. The act merely provides a compensation for that officer in lieu of fees and provides for the payment of this compensation.

It is said the act is an infringement upon the jurisdiction of the county court, in that it undertakes to disburse county funds. In reply to this contention, it may be answered that a similar contention was disposed of in the case of Cain v. Woodruff County, 89 Ark. 456, 117 S. W. 768. There the constitutionality of an act fixing the fees for keeping county prisoners was questioned as being in conflict with section 28, art. 7, of the Constitution, and the court said:

"The fees and salaries that are paid by the respective counties to their respective officers are matters of local concern to the respective counties; and yet no one doubts that the Legislature has the power to fix the amount of those fees and salaries, and does. It is because the exercise of that power is not in conflict with the provision of the Constitution relied herein upon by appellee. And so, too, the provisions of Act No. 136 of the General Assembly of 1907 are not inhibited by that provision of the Constitution."

Moreover, the money disbursed is that collected by way of fees under the authority of an act itself, as we hereinafter decide.

The serious question in the case is whether the act is in conflict with section 11 of article 19 of the Constitution. It is there provided that —

The Governor and certain other state officers shall each receive a salary to be established by law which shall not be increased or diminished during their respective terms, "nor shall any of them, except the prosecuting attorneys after the adoption of this Constitution, receive to his own use any fees, costs, perquisites of office or other compensation; and all fees that may hereafter be payable by law for any service performed by any officer mentioned in this section, except prosecuting attorneys, shall be paid in advance into the state treasury. Provided, that the salaries of the respective officers herein mentioned shall never exceed per annum: * * * For prosecuting attorney the sum of $400.00."

The act under review designates the compensation of the prosecuting attorney as salary and provides that the Greenwood district of Sebastian county shall pay $900 and the Ft. Smith...