Lucas v. Reynolds

• Decision Date: 08 June 1925
• Docket Number: (No. 33.)
• Citation: 272 S.W. 653
• Parties: LUCAS v. REYNOLDS, County Judge.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 653

272 S.W. 653

LUCAS v. REYNOLDS, County Judge.

(No. 33.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

June 8, 1925.

Appeal from Conway Chancery Court; W. E. Atkinson, Chancellor.

Bill by J. L. Lucas against J. H. Reynolds, County Judge. From a decree denying an injunction, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Colvin & Sellers, of Morrillton, for appellant.

Edward Gordon, of Morrillton, for appellee.

McCULLOCH, C. J.

The county court of Conway county made an order ascertaining the amount of the county's indebtedness at the time of the adoption of Amendment No. 11 to the Constitution, and entered into a contract with R. G. Helbron for the sale of bonds sufficient to pay off the indebtedness. The amount of indebtedness was ascertained by the court to be $80,380.84.

Appellant is a citizen and taxpayer of the county, and instituted this action in the chancery court to restrain the county judge from carrying out the project.

The General Assembly enacted a statute (unprinted as yet) entitled "An act to facilitate the funding of the debts of counties, cities and incorporated towns." The contention of appellant is, in the first place, that the county had no right to proceed under Amendment No. 11 until the Enabling Act was passed, and that the act was not in force for the reason that an emergency is not stated in the act so as to put it into immediate force. This point was decided against the contention of appellant in the recent case of Cumnock v. City of Little Rock (Ark.) 271 S. W. 466, where we decided that the portion of Amendment No. 11 authorizing the issuance of bonds was self-executing. We found it unnecessary in that case to decide any other question, and the question as to when the act went into effect is still undecided so far as this court is concerned.

It is further contended that, if the Enabling Act is in effect and controls this proceeding in Conway county, the terms of the statute have been violated, and that the county judge ought to be restrained for that reason. Section 2 of the Enabling Act provides that the bonds to be issued under the amendment shall be "negotiable coupon bonds payable serially through a period of not exceeding forty years, and bearing a rate of interest not exceeding six per cent. per annum," and that "none of such bonds shall mature before September 1, 1926." The schedule agreed upon in the contract between the county and the bond purchaser provides for the first interest payment on October 1, 1925, and the first installment of principal is payable on ...