Norman v. Blair

• Decision Date: 18 June 1928
• Docket Number: (No. 54.)
• Citation: 7 S.W.2d 328
• Parties: NORMAN et al. v. BLAIR, County Judge, et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

7 S.W.2d 328

NORMAN et al. v. BLAIR, County Judge, et al.

(No. 54.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

June 18, 1928.

Appeal from Logan Chancery Court. Jno. E. Chambers, Chancellor.

Suit by Frank Norman and others against Ray Blair, County Judge, and others. From a decree dismissing the complaint for want of equity, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

George M. Bennett, of Paris, for appellants.

Evans & Evans, of Booneville, for appellees.

HUMPHREYS, J.

Appellants brought this suit in the chancery court of Logan county, Southern district, on behalf of themselves and all other taxpayers in said county, against appellees, consisting of the county judge, clerk, courthouse commissioners, and the contractors, to enjoin the construction of a courthouse at Booneville, the county seat of the Southern district, pursuant to the direction of the quorum court, the orders of the county court, and the provisions of the contract entered into between the courthouse commissioners and the county judge on the one part, and the contractors on the other, and to prevent the issuance of county warrants to pay for same. The injunction was sought upon two grounds — the first being that the contract was let for an excessive amount on account of being payable in scrip or warrants in installments of equal amounts covering a period of fifteen years instead of being let for cash, in violation of section 1, art. 16, of the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, which is as follows:

"Neither the state nor any city, county, town or other municipality in this state shall ever loan its credit for any purpose whatever; nor shall any county, city, town or municipality ever issue any interest-bearing evidences of indebtness (a), except such bonds as may be authorized by law to provide for and secure the payment of the present existing indebtedness, and the state shall never issue any interest-bearing treasury warrants or scrip."

And the second ground being that, after paying the necessary expenses out of the revenues derived from all sources, there will not be sufficient revenue left each year to pay the installments to become due under the contract for the construction of the courthouse.

1. This court ruled in the case of Watkins v. Stough, 103 Ark. 468, 147 S. W. 443, that:

"Where a contract for constructing county bridges or other work is let to the lowest bidder, as required by law, the contract price is the measure of the contractor's rights, and not the customary cash market price for materials furnished or work done; and, unless fraud or collusion to increase the price by reason of payment in depreciated...