Dunn v. Ouachita Val. Bank

• Decision Date: 20 December 1902
• Citation: Dunn v. Ouachita Val. Bank, 71 S.W. 265, 71 Ark. 135 (Ark. 1902)
• Parties: DUNN v. OUACHITA VAL. BANK.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

71 S.W. 265

DUNN v. OUACHITA VAL. BANK.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

December 20, 1902.

Appeal from circuit court, Calhoun county; Charles W. Smith, Judge.

Mandamus by the Ouachita Valley Bank against Walter C. Dunn, treasurer of Calhoun county, to compel defendant to pay county warrants. From a judgment granting mandamus, defendant appeals. Reversed.

This is an appeal from a judgment granting mandamus against the appellant, as treasurer of Calhoun county, commanding him to pay certain county warrants of appellee. These warrants were issued upon the orders of allowance of the county court of Calhoun county in favor of W. H. Hall, or bearer. Counsel for appellee states in his brief that: "These warrants were drawn on the stenographer's fund, and the fact that it was not so stated in the complaint was a clerical error. It was considered that way by the court and the parties at the hearing." The answer states: "The reason the warrants were not paid was because there was no money in the hands of the treasurer to the credit of the stenographer's fund." The court sustained a demurrer to this answer, and, appellant not answering further, judgment was rendered against him.

Thornton & Thornton, for appellant. Jno. T. Sifford, for appellee.

WOOD, J. (after stating the facts).

It was alleged in the complaint, and not denied, that there was in the county treasury at the time these warrants were presented, not appropriated to any fund, the sum of $1,000. Appellee contends that the warrants should have been paid, under the authority of section 1243, Sand. & H. Dig., which reads as follows: "All warrants drawn on the treasury shall be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, or out of the particular fund expressed therein, and shall be received, irrespective of their number and date, in payment of all taxes and debts accruing to the county." We held in Franklin Co. v. McRaven, 67 Ark. 562, 55 S. W. 930, that: "Under the act of March 16, 1897, providing for the appointment of a court stenographer, and allowing such stenographer a salary of $800, to be paid out of the stenographer's fund by the several counties composing the circuit, a county is not liable for the payment of its pro rata of such salary out of the general revenue, or any other fund, if there is no money in the stenographer's fund." We said in that case that the language, "and paid into the county treasury as a stenographer's fund, which shall be kept by the treasurer as a...