Price v. Edmonds, 5-1980
Decision Date | 07 December 1959 |
Docket Number | No. 5-1980,5-1980 |
Citation | 231 Ark. 332,330 S.W.2d 82 |
Parties | Howell B. PRICE et al., Appellants, v. Cecil U. EDMONDS, Appellee. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
W. H. Dillahunty, Hale & Fogleman, West Memphis, for appellants.
Fletcher Long, Forrest City, for appellee.
Appellee, Edmonds, is a resident and taxpayer of the City of West Memphis, Arkansas, and pays electric and water rates to a distribution system there which the city owns and operates for distribution of electric power and water to its inhabitants. The ownership of the system is exclusive in the city by ordinance enacted in 1954. Appellants are the duly appointed and acting members of the utility commission and are charged with the operation of the electric power distribution system, the water works and sewer systems of West Memphis. It appears undisputed that some of the members of the commission have made contracts with concerns in which members of the commission have an interest. Appellee, Edmonds, brought the present action in which he sought a restraining order enjoining appellants, as the utility commission and as individual members, from entering into any type of contract, or making payments under any previous contracts, with concerns in which one or more of the commissioners may have an interest, and further sought permission to inspect the records and books of the utility district which he alleged had been denied him.
On a hearing for a temporary injunction, the trial court's 'Order for Temporary Relief' contained, among others, the following recitals:
Appellant says, 'The only question now before this court is that of the propriety of the granting of the temporary injunction.'
On the record presented, we hold that the trial court correctly granted temporary injunctive relief and that there was no abuse of the court's discretion in so doing.
Here the facts are undisputed that appellants, while acting as the utility commissioners for West Memphis, were spending funds of the utility commission in connection with contracts with themselves or with companies in which a commissioner had a beneficial interest. In these circumstances, what we said in Riggs v. Hill, 201 Ark. 206, 144 S.W.2d 26, 28, applies with equal force here. 28 Am.Jur., 500, 501.
We reaffirmed this holding in the more recent case of Scrivner v. Portis Mercantile Company, 220 Ark. 814, 250 S.W.2d 119, 120, in this language:
On appellant's contention that Edmonds had no right to maintain the present suit against the commission, we hold that since the evidence shows that he was a citizen, property owner, taxpayer, ratepayer or 'consumer', he did have the right to maintain the present suit. The Constitution of Arkansas, Article 16, Section 13, provides: 'Any citizen of any * * * city * * * may institute suit in behalf of himself, and all others interested, to protect the inhabitants thereof against the enforcement of any illegal exactions whatever.'
Many of our cases indicate that this section of the constitution was designed to prohibit the illegal expenditure of government funds before they occur. This right has been extended in suits brought against improvement districts by property owners residing therein. In the recent case of Keenan v. Williams, 225 Ark. 556, 283 S.W.2d 688, 689, there was at issue the misuse of district funds by the commissioners of a drainage district and complaint was brought by three landowners within the district. We there said:
In this connection we must not overlook what also appears to be the undisputed facts: (1) The ownership of the distribution system is in the City exclusively. (2) The funds collected from rates, subject to payment of debts and outstanding liens for bonded obligations, are public funds. (3) The directing body of the utility district, the Commissioners, has authority originating exclusively in a grant from duly elected public officials, the city council. (4) Edmonds has a proprietary and pecuniary interest in the distribution system and in the funds of the district, and represents the class which owns the whole interest, subject only to payments already mentioned.
Ordinarily, as appellants contend, the utility commission would have been the proper party to institute this action; however, in the instant case the record shows that they took no action whatever until they were brought into court by appellee who charged them with having committed illegal and unlawful acts which they admitted to be true. In the case of Seitz v. Meriwether, 114 Ark. 289, 169 S.W. 1175, 1177, in which the right of a taxpayer to sue was questioned (an improvement district case which involved a municipal corporation and its inhabitants) we there said:
Yet it appears that they still contend that they have done no wrong officially or individually. In the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mackey v. McDonald
...161 S.W.2d 192; Nelson v. Berry Pteroleum Co., 242 Ark. 273, 413 S.W.2d 46; Parker v. Laws, 249 Ark. 632, 460 S.W.2d 337; Price v. Edmonds, 231 Ark. 332, 330 S.W.2d 82; Cunningham v. Stockton, 235 Ark. 345, 359 S.W.2d 808; Needham v. Garner, 233 Ark. 1006, 350 S.W.2d 194. It seems that, und......
-
Marrow v. State Farm Ins. Co.
...We have never sanctioned an outright and unadulterated "fishing expedition" under Ark.Stat.Ann. § 28-356 (Repl. 1962). Price v. Edmonds, 231 Ark. 332, 330 S.W.2d 82. The later case of Arkansas State Highway Com'n. v. Stanley, 234 Ark. 428, 353 S.W.2d 173, relied upon by appellant, did not o......
-
Bryant v. Arkansas Public Service Com'n, CA
...document sought contains material evidence in support of the cause of action or defense of the party asking for it. Price v. Edmonds, 231 Ark. 332, 337, 330 S.W.2d 82 (1959). It is not sufficient for a party to allege generally the materiality of the books or documents, as this would be the......
-
Union Nat. Bank v. Barnhart, 90-291
...illegal exaction provision, is self-executing and imposes no terms or conditions upon a citizen to bring it. In Price v. Edmonds, 231 Ark. 332, 330 S.W.2d 82 (1959), this court held one need only show he is a citizen, property owner, taxpayer, rate payer or consumer to maintain an exaction ......