Leslie Miller, Inc. v. State

• Decision Date: 04 July 1955
• Docket Number: Nos. 4807-4810,s. 4807-4810
• Citation: 281 S.W.2d 946,225 Ark. 285
• Parties: LESLIE MILLER, Inc., et al., Appellants, v. The STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 946

281 S.W.2d 946

225 Ark. 285

LESLIE MILLER, Inc., et al., Appellants, v. The STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.

Nos. 4807-4810.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

July 4, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 3, 1955.

Sherrill, Gentry & Bonner, Little Rock, for appellant.

Tom Gentry, Atty. Gen., Thorp Thomas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Mehaffy, Smith & Williams, Little Rock, for appellee.

Warren E. Burger, Asst. U. S. Atty. Gen, Osro Cobb, U. S. Atty., amici curiae.

SEAMSTER, Chief Justice.

In each of these cases, the appellants were found guilty in Pulaski Circuit Court on each of two counts of an information filed by the Prosecuting Attorney of Pulaski County, Arkansas, on behalf of the State of Arkansas. The separate informations charged appellants with violating the provisions of Act 124 of 1939, as amended, Ark.Stats.1947, §§ 71-701 to 71-721, in that each of the appellants, without authority from the Contractors Licensing Board, (1) submitted a bid to the United States for the construction of certain facilities at a cost in excess of $20,000 on property owned, or leased, by the United States in Arkansas and (2) thereafter executed a contract to do said construction and entered into the performance of the contract. In each case, appellants were assessed a fine in the sum of $100 on each of the two counts of the information.

The contract with appellant, Engineering Construction Corporation, is for construction of an Air National Guard installation in Sebastian County, Arkansas, on property leased from the City of Fort Smith for that purpose. The other appellants, Ramsey and Leftwich, Tecon Corporation and Leslie Miller, Inc., have contracts for construction of facilities at the Air Force Base in Pulaski County, Arkansas. All of the above contracts greatly exceed the statutory minimum of $20,000. It is agreed that the lands on which the facilities are being constructed were purchased or leased, by the United States with the consent of the State of Arkansas but that the United States Government has not accepted jurisdiction over the lands as provided in 40 U.S.C.A. § 255.

In each of the instant cases, appellants expressly deny that Act 124 of 1939, as amended, is applicable to its activities in placing the aforesaid bids, procuring the contracts, and performing work thereunder. The appellants contend that the stipulation in each of the cases shows that the lands upon which the contract is to be performed for the agency of the United States Government are either owned or leased by the United States or its agency for one of the purposes mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 17, of the United States Constitution and the State by the provisions of Section 10-1101 of the Arkansas Statutes, Anno., has consented to the acquisition by the United States of these lands, and has relinquished jurisdiction of the lands. The appellants rely upon the case of Lynch v. Hammock, 204 Ark. 911, 165 S.W.2d 369, 372, in which this Court stated: 'We think it clear, under the above authorities, that the laws, supra, affecting the practice of medicine and surgery in Arkansas do not control and cannot apply to the rights of Dr. Lynch to practice on property, the jurisdiction over which has been surrendered to the United States, and the title to which property has been acquired by the United States by purchase.'

There is nothing in this opinion to indicate that 40 U.S.C.A. § 255 was called to this Court's attention at that time or that the statute was considered. On the other hand it is quite apparent that this Court, in deciding the Lynch case considered only two things: (1) had jurisdiction over the lands in question been surrendered by the State to the United States; and (2) had title to the property been acquired by the United States.

40 U.S.C.A. § 255, provides in part as follows: 'Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the obtaining of exclusive jurisdiction in the United States over lands or interests therein which have been or shall hereafter be acquired by it shall not be required; but the head or other authorized officer of any department or independent establishment or agency of the Government may, in such cases and at such times as he may deem desirable, accept or secure from the State in which any lands or interests therein under his immediate jurisdiction, custody, or control are situated, consent to or cession of such jurisdiction, exclusive or partial, not theretofore obtained, over any such lands or interests as he may deem desirable and indicate acceptance of such jurisdiction on behalf of the United States by filing a notice of such acceptance with the Governor of such State or in such other manner as may be prescribed by the laws of the State where such lands are situated. Unless and until the United States has accepted jurisdiction over...