Mississippi County v. Grider

• Decision Date: 04 December 1916
• Docket Number: 26
• Citation: 190 S.W. 102,126 Ark. 219
• Parties: MISSISSIPPI COUNTY v. GRIDER
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

190 S.W. 102

MISSISSIPPI COUNTY v. GRIDER

126 Ark. 219

No. 26

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 4, 1916

Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court, Osceola District; W. J Driver, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Lamb & Rhodes, for appellant.

The law of this case is Kirby's Digest, Ch. 35, §§ 1009-12-14-17 to 1024. While only one commissioner is authorized, the fact that three were appointed is not material, except that no additional compensation can be paid. 68 Ark. 340. Instead of performing the duties, they employed others to do so, and they were paid. To pay the commissioners would be double compensation. Gladish is not entitled to any pay for his services. Kirby's Digest, § 1486. The act of April 5, 1913, made no provision for paying the three commissioners.

Waddell did nothing, Grider but little and Gladish was not entitled to pay.

J. T Coston, for appellees.

1. Gladish was entitled to compensation after his term as county judge expired. The court allowed a lump sum, and this court is not concerned about how it is to be divided. 122 Ark. 596.

2. The services were rendered and the court, in the exercise of its best judgment allowed a lump sum. It is immaterial whether one or three commissioners get the amount. The commissioners superintended and directed the work, hired an architect and let the contract, etc. Kirby's Digest, § 1021; 74 N.W. 432; 28 N.E. 400; 1 So. 521; 96 U.S. 341; 72 Mich. 295; 107 F. 369; 7 Ill. 256; 2 N.E. 544; 66 N.W. 866; 19 Minn 295.

2. The allowance was reasonable and the court had jurisdiction. 98 Ark. 529.

OPINION

SMITH, J.

This appeal is prosecuted to reverse a judgment in favor of appellees in which they were allowed the sum of one thousand dollars for services as courthouse commissioners. Their appointment related originally to an order of the county court of Mississippi County made in 1911 in which S. L. Gladish, as county judge, appointed himself and the other appellees as commissioners. They employed an architect to prepare plans for the building, and paid him $ 1,500 for that service. In addition, they employed one Parlow as superintendent to supervise the construction of the building at a salary of $ 200 per month, and paid him for his services in this connection $ 3,400. The commissioners advertised for bids for the construction of the building and let a contract for that purpose for $ 87,820. The testimony shows that the county received full value for this money, but it is somewhat conflicting as to the nature, character and extent of the services rendered by the commissioners themselves. There is testimony, however, to sustain the finding that they exercised that general supervision of the building in its construction, and in making various contracts relating thereto which commissioners acting as such are required under the statute to perform, and that they continued in the performance of these duties from the time of their original appointment until the final completion and acceptance of the building.

It is conceded that the appointment of Gladish by himself as a commissioner is void; but his term of office as judge expired on October 31, 1912, and he, with the other commissioners appointed by himself, were named as commissioners in Act No 327, Acts 1913, page 1498, and there charged with the duty of constructing the courthouse at Osceola. The statutes of this State in regard to the building of courthouses contemplate the appointment of only one commissioner, and authority exists only for allowing compensation to one commissioner. The act of 1913 above mentioned amended this statute so far as it related to ...