Hollis v. Erwin
| Decision Date | 03 February 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-3250,5-3250 |
| Citation | 237 Ark. 605,374 S.W.2d 828 |
| Parties | Kenneth M. HOLLIS, Appellant, v. J. L. ERWIN, County Judge, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Robert M. Smith, McGehee, for appellant.
E. W. Brockman, Pine Bluff, Smith, Williams, Friday & Bowen, by Herschel H. Friday, Jr., and John C. Echols, Little Rock, for appellee.
This is a test suit to determine the legality of the proceedings and election ballot involving the County Hospital Units in Desha County; and necessitates a study of Amendments 17 and 25 of the Arkansas Constitution, as well as the cases construing these amendments. On July 9, 1963, the County Court of Desha County made an order, the pertinent portions of which are:
The said plans 1 and specifications were duly filed; and on August 5, 1963, the County Court entered an order, the pertinent portions of which are:
'That Wittenberg, Delony & Davidson, Architects, Little Rock, Arkansas, heretofore appointed by this court, filed in the office of the County Clerk of the County on the 10th day of July, 1963, plans, specifications and estimates of cost covering the constructing and equipping of a hospital at McGehee and that said plans, specifications and estimates of cost are now on file in the office of the County Clerk and are subject to the inspection of any and all persons interested. The estimated cost to the County of the proposed work is approximately $240,000, it being contemplated that the balance of the total estimated cost will be obtained from an agency or agencies of the Government of the United States of America. The Court has examined said plans, specifications and estimates and has determined that the work covered thereby would be in the best interest of the County and its citizens.
'That Stowers & Boyce, Architects, Little Rock, Arkansas, heretofore appointed by the Court, filed in the office of the County Clerk of the County on the 10th day of July, 1963, plans, specifications and estimates of cost covering the reconstructing, extending and equipping the county hospital at Dumas and that said plans, specifications and estimates of cost are now on file in the office of the County Clerk and are subject to the inspection of any and all persons interested. The estimated cost to the County of the proposed work is approximately $160,000, it being contemplated that the balance of the proposed work is approximately $160,000, it being contemplated that the balance of the total estimated cost will be obtained from an agency or agencies of the Government of the United States of America. The Court has examined said plans, specifications and estimates, and has determined that the work covered thereby would be in the best interest of the County and its citizens.
'That the proposed County Hospital units at McGehee and Dumas shall be parts of the single County Hospital to serve the citizens of the County and shall be operated and administered by the single County Hospital Board. As such, and in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of medical facilities, said Hospitals units shall be deemed to be one improvement within the meaning of Amendment No. 17 to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas and should be submitted as a single ballot question in the special election mentioned herein below.
'That the questions of constructing, reconstructing, extending and equipping said projects, heretofore in this Order specifically identified, and the levying of a building tax for the purpose of paying the principal of, interest on and Paying Agent's fees in connection with bonds of the County proposed to be issued under the provisions of Amendment No. 17 to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, Amendment No. 25, to obtain the necessary funds for financing the said portion of the cost of said projects to be bone by the County shall be submitted to the qualified electors of Desha County, Arkansas at a special election which is hereby called to be held on the 10th day of September, 1963, and that said questions shall be placed on the ballot in substantially the following form:
'It is proposed to construct, equip and extend County Hospital facilities for the citizens of Desha County by constructing and equipping a hospital at McGehee at an estimated cost to the County of $240,000, and by reconstructing, extending and equipping the Hospital at Dumas at an estimated cost to the County of $160,000 (it being contemplated that the balance of the total estimated cost of both said Hospital and facilities will be obtained from an agency or agencies of the Government of the United States of America), and to issue General Obligation Bonds of the County under Amendment No. 17 to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, Amendment No. 25, to provide funds for the payment of the estimated cost of said Hospital units to be borne by the County, in accordance therewith there is hereby submitted to the voters of Desha County, Arkansas, the questions of voting for or against said construction, reconstruction, extension and equipment (called 'Construction'), and for or against the levying of a building tax to pay the principal of interest on and Paying Agent's fees in connection with said bonds.
'Indicate how you wish to vote by marking the ballot with an 'X' in the box opposite the question:
'For Construction ...... [ ] [ ]
'Against Construction .. [ ] [ ]
'For Building Tax ...... [ ] [ ]
'Against Building Tax .. [ ] [ ]'
(Emphasis supplied.)
The election was duly held on September 10, 1963, with the ballot having the full matter before it, as italicized above; and the vote was in favor of the hospital issue and the building tax therefor. The appellant then filed this suit in the Chancery Court to enjoin the County Judge from further proceedings in the matter of the hospital; and the complaint alleged:
'That the purported approval of said questions in said manner was illegal and of no effect, being in violation of Amendment 17 to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, Amendment No. 25, in that the voters were deprived of an opportunity to vote upon each contemplated improvement separately, as provided in said Amendments.
'That unless restrained and enjoined, the defendant will convene the Quorum Court of Desha County, Arkansas for the purpose of levying a continuing annual building tax to pay the principal, interest, and paying agent's fees of bonds of the County which will be issued to pay the County's portion of said costs, all in violation of the Constitution and laws of the State of Arkansas, and in violation of the right of plaintiff and others similarly situated, to be secure from unlawful and illegal exactions.'
The defendant (County Judge) resisted the complaint, and, inter alia, prayed for a decree:
'* * * declaring and holding that the election of September 10, 1963, and all proceedings prior to and in connection with the election were legal, valid and effective and that defendant is authorized by law to proceed to take the necessary action to secure the construction and equipping of the hospital buildings at McGehee and Dumas, to issue bonds to finance the County's portion of the costs thereof and to levy a continuing annual building tax to pay the principal of, interest on, and paying agent's fees for the bonds.'
The cause was heard by the Chancery Court on an agreed statement of facts which incorporated most of the matters that we have already detailed, and also stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE v. EMERSON NETWORK POWER
...the course of construction' applies to a building from the time of its commencement to its completion." Finally, in Hollis v. Erwin, 237 Ark. 605, 613, 374 S.W.2d 828 (1964), the court considered what constituted the construction of a hospital and concluded that it was "more than a mere bui......
-
Reed v. State
...Bender 2018). Arkansas common law has been flexible and deferential on the issue of judicial notice. See, e.g. , Hollis v. Erwin , 237 Ark. 605, 374 S.W.2d 828 (1964) (court knew population and location of cities within Desha County); Lewis v. Tate , 210 Ark. 594, 197 S.W.2d 23 (1946) (taki......
-
Eggleston v. West Virginia Dept. of Highways
...course of construction' applies to a building from the time of its commencement to its completion." Finally, in Hollis v. Erwin, 237 Ark. 605, 613, 374 S.W.2d 828, 833 (1964), the court considered what constituted the construction of a hospital and concluded that it was "more than a mere bu......
-
Davis v. Waller
... ... These points questioning the legality of equipping the hospital have been considered very recently by this court in Hollis v. Erwin, 237 ... Ark. 605, 374 S.W.2d 828, wherein we held that a county is authorized under Amendment 17 to equip a hospital, and explained that: ... ...