Klingensmith v. Logan County

• Decision Date: 21 December 1914
• Docket Number: 80
• Citation: 171 S.W. 1191,116 Ark. 65
• Parties: KLINGENSMITH v. LOGAN COUNTY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

171 S.W. 1191

116 Ark. 65

KLINGENSMITH v. LOGAN COUNTY

No. 80

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 21, 1914

Appeal from Logan Circuit Court, Northern District; Jeptha H. Evans Judge; affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

This cause was tried upon the following agreed statement of facts:

"The county judge of Logan County determined to build a jail at Booneville and employed A Klingensmith, an architect of Fort Smith, to draw the plans and specifications and to superintend it. He was to receive 3 per cent for drawing plans and specifications and 2 per cent for superintending it. Mr. Klingensmith did the work of drawing plans and specifications and letting the contract. Based on a low bid his agreed compensation for this was to be 3 per cent of the low bid, which amounted to $ 210. The county judge made an order for the building of the jail September 17, 1912, but at no time did either the county court or the quorum court of Logan County make any appropriation for the building of the jail, and the question to be raised by this appeal is the right of the architect to recover for his work when no appropriation whatever was made by the county court or quorum court, notwithstanding he did the work under the directions of the county judge, and there is no county court order appointing him as architect, but there is one approving his plans."

Appellant requested the court to make a declaration of law predicated upon the above statement which was to the effect that appellant was entitled to a judgment for the amount sued for. The court refused to make this declaration of law, but upon the contrary, made a finding in favor of the county, and this appeal has been duly prosecuted.

Judgment affirmed.

Vincent M. Miles, for appellant.

The county court may authorize the building of a jail and approve a contract therefor without any previous appropriation by the levying court. Kirby's Dig., § 1011; 93 Ark. 11; 63 Id. 397; 73 Id. 523; Const. 1874, art. 16 § 12.

J. D. Benson, for appellee.

It should appear of record (1) that the county court authorized the building of the jail; (2) that there were sufficient funds available for the purpose; (3) that the circumstances would permit the court to levy a tax to build the jail, and (4) that a proper order be made upon the above three matters of record. Kirby's Digest, § 1011; 93 Ark. 11; 63 Id. 397; 73 Id. 523.

OPINION

SMITH, J., (after stating the facts).

It was decided in the case of Sadler v. Craven, 93 Ark. 11, 123 S.W. 365 (to quote from the syllabus in that case) that "Kirby's Digest, § 1011, authorizing the county court to build a courthouse or jail whenever it shall think it expedient to do so, was not repealed by the subsequent statute (Kirby's Digest, § 1502), providing that 'no county court or agent of any county shall hereafter make any contract on behalf of the county unless an appropriation has been previously made therefor, and is wholly or in part unexpended.'"

Upon the authority of this case, the...