Page v. McKinley
Decision Date | 30 May 1938 |
Docket Number | 4-5151 |
Citation | 118 S.W.2d 235,196 Ark. 331 |
Parties | PAGE v. MCKINLEY |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Frank H. Dodge, Chancellor reversed.
Judgment reversed and dismissed.
Jack Holt, Attorney General, and Leffel Gentry, Assistant, for appellants.
G. B Oliver, Jr., Ed I. McKinley, Jr., and John R. Thompson, for appellees.
Appellees Ed I. McKinley, Jr., and G. B. Oliver, Jr., brought this action against Earl Page, as Treasurer of the State of Arkansas, the State Auditor, the Secretary of the Arkansas Corporation Commission, and a great number of county assessors and clerks of this state, alleging that on or about the 15th day of January, 1937, they entered into an agreement with B. A. Fletcher and E. L. Mizell who were duly authorized to contract on behalf of said assessors and clerks, for the purpose of securing the passage of an appropriation bill to pay said assessors and clerks certain back pay, which it was claimed the state owed them. Said contract will hereinafter be set out more in detail. It was further alleged that it was the intention of all parties that any amount recovered for said assessors and clerks in excess of 70 per cent. of the amounts mentioned in their contract should be and was by said contract assigned to them. The complaint sets out the amount recovered for each assessor and clerk and the amount claimed by appellees as due them, which is 30 per cent. of the amount recovered. It is alleged that 60 per cent. of the amount recovered was paid to the assessors and clerks by proper warrants on or about December 13, 1937, and that on or about March 2, 1938, the State Auditor issued his warrants, which were approved by the Secretary of the Corporation Commission, payable to the assessors and clerks for the remaining 40 per cent. of the amounts due them, which warrants were delivered to the assessors and clerks in error on the part of said secretary and said auditor, because of the above mentioned assignments, which were in the hands of the State Auditor when he issued the warrants above mentioned. The complaint then sets out the amount due each assessor and clerk and the amount due appellees from each of them. The complaint then alleges the services rendered under the contract above mentioned including the searching of sources of income to the state to find a source from which revenue might be obtained by legislative enactment to pay said amounts, and that they finally discovered a source of revenue for said purpose; that they began the search of authorities and drew up a bill to be presented to the legislature, got it introduced, appeared before numerous committee meetings of the legislature, explained the source of revenue and the effect of the payment of the amount due said assessors and clerks upon the revenue of the state, and that as a result of their efforts and labors, a proper bill for the payment of the back salaries was prepared and became a law and the warrants above set forth were issued. It is further alleged that said assessors and clerks are insolvent, and that they have indicated that they are going to breach their contract, and that if the warrants above mentioned, which were issued to the assessors and clerks in payment of the money which was assigned by them to appellees, are paid by the State Treasurer, they will be without a remedy to collect the money due them, and that this action avoids a multiplicity of lawsuits by joining all proper parties in one suit. The prayer was that the warrants issued on March 2, 1938, for the 40 per cent. as above stated, be canceled and held for naught and that the State Treasurer be enjoined from paying said warrants pending the final hearing of said complaint and upon final hearing, that it be made permanent; that said assessors and clerks or their assigns be required to deposit said warrants with the registry of this court to be returned to the Auditor of the State, and that the Secretary of the Corporation Commission and the Auditor of the State be required to re-issue said warrants by issuing to appellees the amount set out above as being 30 per cent. of the amounts recovered by the assessors and clerks, and the balance be issued to them. The contract above mentioned is shown by exhibits "A" and "B," which are as follows:
The complaint was filed on March 3, 1938, and on the same day the court granted a temporary order enjoining the treasurer from paying the warrants issued to said assessors and clerks until a further order of the court. On ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McCain, Commissioner of Labor v. Crossett Lumber Co.
... ... 814, 152 S.W.2d ... The ... views herein expressed are in no way in conflict with the ... decision in the case of McKinley v. R. L. Payne & Son Lbr. Co., 200 Ark. 1114, 143 S.W.2d 38 ... The ... effect of that decision is that regardless of the ... v ... Kays, 106 Ark. 174, 152 S.W. 992; Ark. State ... Highway Commission v. Partain, 193 Ark. 803, ... 103 S.W.2d 53; Page v. McKinley, 196 Ark ... 331, 118 S.W.2d 235 ... ... Section 14 (d) of Act 391 of 1941 (a similar section having ... been ... ...
-
Atu et al v. Link et al
...against the State are expressly forbiddenby this provision. Beaulieu v. Gray, 288 Ark. 395, 705 S.W.2d 880 (1986); Page v. McKinley, 196 Ark. 331, 118 S.W.2d 235 (1938). As we stated long ago in Pitock v. State, 91 Ark. 527, 535 (1909), `[A] sovereign State cannot be sued except by its own ......
-
McCain v. Crossett Lumber Co.
...527, 529, 121 S.W. 742, 134 Am.St.Rep. 88; Allen Engineering Co. v. Kays, 106 Ark. 174, 152 S.W. 992; Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Partain, McKinley, 196 Ark. 331, 118 S.W.2d 235. 193 Ark. 803, 103 S.W.2d 53; Page Section 14(d) of Act 391 of 1941 (a similar section having been inclu......
-
Short v. Westark Community College
...791, 2 S.W.3d 54 (1999); Fireman's Ins. Co. v. Arkansas State Claims Comm'n, 301 Ark. 451, 784 S.W.2d 771 (1990); Page v. McKinley, 196 Ark. 331, 118 S.W.2d 235 (1938). As the initial consideration, we must consider whether Westark is "an arm of the State" or a State entity subject to the p......