Farmer v. Franklin County
| Decision Date | 15 April 1929 |
| Docket Number | 256 |
| Citation | 16 S.W.2d 10,179 Ark. 373 |
| Parties | FARMER v. FRANKLIN COUNTY |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court, Ozark District; J. O. Kincannon Judge; affirmed.
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
James Farmer prosecutes this appeal to reverse a judgment of the circuit court disallowing his claim for $ 595 for road building.
The record shows that on the 24th day of March, 1925, James Farmer entered into a contract with George W. Barham, county judge of Franklin County, Arkansas, to build a certain number of miles of county road. On September 1, 1925, James Farmer presented his claim to the county court for building said road in the sum of $ 1,345. The. county court allowed the claim in the sum of $ 750, and a warrant was issued to James Farmer for that amount. The warrant was paid, and no appeal was taken from the judgment of allowance. One year thereafter, to-wit, on September 1, 1926, James Farmer filed another claim in the county court for the same work in which he claimed that he was due $ 1,345 for the road work under his original contract, and that the county was entitled to a credit of $ 750 for money paid him under the contract. He claimed a balance due of $ 595 under the original contract. On the back of this claim appears the following: No appeal was attempted to be taken in this matter. In February, 1928, he filed another claim for $ 1,345 alleged to be due under the original contract, which was credited with the sum of $ 750 paid by the county, leaving a balance due of $ 596. This claim was disallowed by the county court, and Farmer appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court rendered a judgment disallowing the claim; and Farmer has appealed to this court.
Judgment affirmed.
Starbird & Starbird, for appellant.
R S. Wilson and Linus A. Williams, for appellee.
HART, C. J., (after stating the facts).
It is the settled rule in this State that county courts act judicially in the allowance or disallowance of claims against the county. State use of Izard County v. Hinkle, 37 Ark. 532; Hutson v. State use of Hempstead County, 171 Ark. 1132, 287 S.W. 398; and Harriman National Bank v. Pope County, 173 Ark. 243, 292 S.W. 379.
The contract made with Farmer for road construction was one contract, and no claim was made by him for any amount due him until after he had performed the contract. He then presented his claim to the county court, which was allowed in the sum of $ 750. A warrant was issued to him for this amount, and paid. This was a final judgment. Appeals are allowed to the circuit court from all final orders and judgments of the county court, and on such appeals the circuit court proceeds to try such cases de novo as other cases at law. Section 2287 of Crawford & Moses' Digest; and Marion County v. Estes, 79 Ark. 504, 96 S.W. 165.
When Farmer failed to appeal from the judgment of allowance in his favor for $ 750...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mears v. Hall
...267; Watson v. Union County, 193 Ark. 559, 101 S.W.2d 791; Logan County v. Anderson, 202 Ark. 244, 150 S.W.2d 197; Farmer v. Franklin County, 179 Ark. 373, 16 S.W.2d 10. This is no longer the case. One of the provisions of § 3 of Amendment 55 to the Arkansas Constitution is that "(t)he Coun......
-
Arkansas Ass'n of County Judges v. Green
...passing on a claim presented to it, acts in a judicial capacity, citing Hutson v. State, 171 Ark. 1132, 287 S.W. 398; Farmer v. Franklin County, 179 Ark. 373, 16 S.W.2d 10, and Logan County v. Anderson, 202 Ark. 244, 150 S.W.2d 197. It was pointed out that, under Article 7, Section 51 of th......
-
Fulton County v. Barham
... ... claimants were not satisfied. A similar [181 Ark. 595] ... situation existed in Farmer v. Franklin ... County, 179 Ark. 373, 16 S.W.2d 10. It was there stated ... that: "It is the settled rule in this State that county ... courts act ... ...