Laman v. Moore
| Decision Date | 18 January 1937 |
| Docket Number | 4-4612 |
| Parties | LAMAN v. MOORE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Frank H. Dodge, Chancellor reversed.
Decree reversed.
Floyd Terral, for appellant.
Chrisp & Nixon, Taylor Roberts, House, Moses & Holmes and Eugene R Warren, for appellees.
This suit was brought in the chancery court of Pulaski county by Mrs. Emma Neighbors, a resident and taxpayer in the city of North Little Rock, against the mayor, city attorney, and alderman to prevent them from drawing certain moneys out of the city treasury in addition to their regular salaries under and by virtue of ordinances passed by the city council during their respective terms of office designated as ordinances for expense accounts, and to recover from them the amounts received in addition to their regular salaries. The ordinances were made exhibits to the complaint. Section 1 of [193 Ark. 447] the ordinance relative to additional allowances to the mayor and city attorney is as follows:
"From and after the passage of this ordinance there is hereby appropriated one hundred dollars ($ 100.00) per month as an expense account for the mayor, in addition to his salary, and fifty dollars ($ 50.00) per month as an expense account for the city attorney, in addition to his regular salary."
Section 1 of the ordinance relative to additional allowances to the aldermen is as follows:
"From and after the passage of this ordinance there is hereby appropriated as an expense account fifteen dollars ($ 15.00) per month for each alderman, in addition to their present salaries." These ordinances recited that the allowances were made on account of additional work which the mayor and aldermen would be required to do because of the determination of the city to acquire a waterworks distribution system, and additional work of the city attorney in prosecuting violations of city ordinances in the municipal court.
The city clerk and city treasurer were made parties defendant in order to prevent the issuance and payment of warrants for said amounts.
After the issues had been joined appellant obtained permission to intervene as a party plaintiff in behalf of himself as a resident and taxpayer in said city and to adopt the complaint and amendment thereto of Mrs. Emma Neighbors as his complaint, who had sold her real estate and removed from the city during the pendency of the suit.
Objection was made to him being made a party plaintiff on the ground that the only proper proceeding was for him to bring a separate and independent action. The objection was and should have been overruled. The suit was brought by a resident taxpayer to prevent the alleged unlawful expenditure of funds belonging to the city, and, by including another resident and taxpayer of the city as a party plaintiff, did not change the nature or purpose of the suit. The suit as originally brought was necessarily for the benefit of all taxpayers of the city and might as well be prosecuted in the name of one as of another. No prejudice whatever resulted to the defendants (appellees) by allowing appellant to become a party plaintiff for the purpose of prosecuting the suit. Neither the original plaintiff nor the appellant could recover a personal judgment against any of the appellees (defendants) except for the benefit of all taxpayers of the city.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mackey v. McDonald
...the constitution and statutes of the state was held to be appropriate basis for taxpayer relief from an illegal exaction. Laman v. Moore, 193 Ark. 446, 100 S.W.2d 971. We have upheld a decree for recovery of salary paid to a de facto officer in a taxpayer's action under this provision of ou......
-
Butt v. Evans Law Firm, P.A.
...Samples v. Grady, 207 Ark. 724, 182 S.W.2d 875 (1944); McCarroll v. Farrar, 199 Ark. 320, 134 S.W.2d 561 (1939); Laman v. Moore, 193 Ark. 446, 100 S.W.2d 971 (1937); Rigsby v. Ruraldale Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 64, 180 Ark. 122, 20 S.W.2d 624 (1929); Dreyfus v. Boone, 88 Ark. 353, 114 S.W. 71......
-
Brown v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc.
...to collectively resist illegal taxation. Worth v. City of Rogers, 351 Ark. 183, 89 S.W.3d 875, 880–81 (2002) (citing Laman v. Moore, 193 Ark. 446, 100 S.W.2d 971 (1937)). In bringing an illegal-exaction claim, the Arkansas Supreme Court instructs courts to use Arkansas Rule 23 as a procedur......
-
Carwell Elevator Co., Inc. v. Leathers
...taxpayers, generally, in a collective capacity, resist illegal exaction. Martin, 308 Ark. at 331, 824 S.W.2d 832. In Laman v. Moore, 193 Ark. 446, 100 S.W.2d 971 (1937), this court discussed an illegal-exaction suit where the original plaintiff who brought the suit had moved away from the c......