Dunn v. Lott

• Decision Date: 01 August 1900
• Citation: 58 S.W. 375
• Parties: DUNN et al. v. LOTT et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 375

58 S.W. 375

DUNN et al. v. LOTT et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

August 1, 1900.

Appeal from circuit court, Little River county; Will P. Feazell, Judge.

Appeal by J. M. Dunn and others from a judgment ordering an election on a proposition for the removal of the county seat of Little River county. Affirmed.

Several petitions were filed in the county court of Little River county in 1897 asking for an order for an election for removal of the county seat from Richmond to the place named in the petitions. These petitions were heard by the county court in May, 1897, and the court refused to order the election. An appeal was taken to the circuit court, and the cause heard there upon the petitions of appellees, the answer and remonstrance of appellants, and agreed statement of facts. The finding of the circuit court is as follows: "The court finds that the number of persons in Little River county liable to pay a poll tax, as returned by the assessor, is 2,239, and the number of persons appearing on the petitions for removal, and liable to pay a poll, is 812. And the court further finds that the number of qualified voters of Little River county, as shown by the official list certified by the tax collector of said county in 1896, and filed with and recorded by the county clerk, as required by law, is 1,813, and that the number of qualified voters upon the petitions for removal, as shown by the said official list, is 664. The court therefore finds that the petitions for removal of the county seat of Little River county contain one-third of the qualified voters of said county, as contemplated by the law." The court thereupon gave judgment in favor of petitioners, and ordered an election as prayed. From this judgment an appeal was taken to this court.

J. C. Head, for appellants. L. A. Byrne, for appellees.

RIDDICK, J. (after stating the facts).

This is an appeal from a judgment ordering an election on a petition for the removal of a county seat. The only question presented is whether the amendment to the constitution requiring each voter to exhibit a poll-tax receipt, or produce other evidence of the payment of his poll tax, before voting, affected or changed the statute in reference to the removal of county seats. The statute in question provides that the county court may order an election to submit the proposition for removal of a county seat to the voters wherein one-third of "the qualified voters" of the county join in a petition to that effect. Sand. & H. Dig. § 945. A majority of the qualified voters must vote in favor of a change to the place named in the petition before the court can make the order for removal. Another section of the act is as follows: "To ascertain the number of qualified voters of any county for the purposes of this act, and the lawful majority necessary to authorize the change or removal of any county seat as herein provided for, the county court shall be governed by the number of...