Price v. Madison County Bank
| Decision Date | 19 April 1909 |
| Citation | 118 S.W. 706,90 Ark. 195 |
| Parties | PRICE v. MADISON COUNTY BANK |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Madison Circuit Court; Joseph S. Maples, Judge reversed.
Judgment reversed and cause dismissed.
W. N Ivie, for appellant.
Appellee pro se.
The General Assembly of 1907 passed an act to provide a depositary for the county funds of Madison County. Acts of 1907, p. 113.
Pursuant to the provisions of the act, an advertisement for bids was made, and an order was made by the county court selecting the Madison County Bank as such depositary, it having offered the highest rate of interest per annum offered for said funds.
Sec. 3 of the act provides that the interest shall be computed on the daily balances to the credit of the county, and that the same shall be payable to the county treasurer quarterly, and shall be immediately placed by said treasurer to the credit of the common school funds of the county.
One quarter's interest, amounting to $ 300, became due. The Madison County Bank claimed that it was payable in county warrants. The county treasurer contended that it was payable in lawful currency of the United States, and, upon the refusal of the bank to make payment in such currency, filed a petition with the county court of Madison County reciting the above facts and asking that said bank be required to appear in said county court and to show cause why it had not paid to the county treasurer said amount of interest due, and why judgment should not be rendered against it for the interest due, amounting to $ 300, and for the penalties attaching on account of its refusal so to pay.
On a hearing of the cause, the county court rendered judgment in favor of the county treasurer against said bank for the sum of $ 300 with interest at the rate of 6 5/8 per cent. The bank appealed to the circuit court.
On a trial anew in the circuit court, the presiding judge was of the opinion that said interest was payable in Madison County warrants, and a judgment was rendered ordering the county treasurer to accept county warrants in payment of said interest. The county treasurer in turn has appealed to this court.
The first question that presents itself is that of jurisdiction. It is settled that, upon appeal from the county court, the circuit court acquires only such jurisdiction as the county court had, and can render only such judgment as the county court should have rendered. Pride v. State, 52 Ark. 502, 13 S.W. 135.
The question then is, did the county court have jurisdiction of the matter in the first instance? If the county court had jurisdiction, it acquired it under sec. 28, art. 7, of the Constitution, which provides that "the county courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters relating to the county taxes," etc.
In the case of Christian v. Ashley County, 24 Ark 142, it was held that the county court has jurisdiction to render judgment against a delinquent collector or his sureties for the county revenue which he has collected and failed to pay over as required by law." To the same effect, see also Pettigrew v. Washington County, 43 Ark. 33. Here the case is different. This is not a matter of the settlement of the collector or treasurer with the county court for taxes. Prior to the passage of the act, no one had authority to loan out the county funds. The act under consideration makes it lawful to loan out the public funds of the county under the conditions imposed by the act. Sec. 4 of the act provides that all stockholders of any such bank shall be liable for all public funds that such bank shall fail to pay over on demand to the person entitled to receive the same. Sec. 6 provides that a bond shall be given for the prompt payment and accounting of the funds according to law, and that for any breach of the bond the county or any person injured may maintain an action in the name of the county to the use of the county,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCain, Commissioner of Labor v. Crossett Lumber Co.
... ... The remuneration paid by Crossett were the ... agreed contract price, based upon the amount of timber which ... the contractor actually ... itself, and must be determined by the court. Price ... v. Madison County Bank, 90 Ark. 195, 118 S.W. 706 ... The court has, therefore, ... ...
-
McCain v. Crossett Lumber Co.
...even though not raised by the parties, is always open. It presents itself, and must be determined by the court. Price v. Madison County Bank, 90 Ark. 195, 118 S.W. 706. The court has, therefore, considered the question as to whether it lacks jurisdiction in this case on account of the const......
-
Rockefeller v. Hogue
...only such judgment as the trial court could or should have rendered. Pride v. State, 52 Ark. 502, 13 S.W. 135; Price v. Madison County Bank, 90 Ark. 195, 118 S.W. 706; Markham v. Evans, supra; Carter Special School District v. Hollis Special School District, supra; Baughman v. Overton, 183 ......
-
Less v. Less
...628; 13 Ark. 187. Chancery court in original action, Less v. Less, was without jurisdiction to make this order. 55 Ark. 205; 81 Ark. 452; 90 Ark. 195; Ark. 429; 76 Ark. 146. Farm Loan Company not a party when this order was made, its petition to be made a party having been denied. McKnight ......