Rebsamen, Brown & Company v. Van Buren County

• Decision Date: 14 May 1928
• Docket Number: 456
• Citation: 6 S.W.2d 288,177 Ark. 268
• Parties: REBSAMEN, BROWN & COMPANY v. VAN BUREN COUNTY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

6 S.W.2d 288

177 Ark. 268

REBSAMEN, BROWN & COMPANY v. VAN BUREN COUNTY

No. 456

Supreme Court of Arkansas

May 14, 1928

Appeal from Van Buren Circuit Court; J. F. Koone, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Taylor Roberts and Carmichael & Hendricks, for appellant.

W H. Cooper, for appellee.

OPINION

MCHANEY, J.

Appellants are certified public accountants of Little Rock, Arkansas, and on the 4th day of December, 1926, entered into a contract with the county judge of Van Buren County, to make an audit of the books and records of said county for a period of four years, ending December 31, 1926, and submit a report of such audit to the county judge, for which they were to be paid the sum of $ 1,000. Acting under said contract, they entered upon said work in December, 1926, and finished same in March, 1927, submitted a report of their audit to the county judge at Bee Branch, in said county, the last day of April or the first day of May, which the county judge declined to accept. They thereafter filed a copy of said report on July 5, 1927, with the clerk of the court. The county judge who made and executed the contract for appellee went out of office December 31, 1926, and a new county judge came in January 1, 1927.

At a meeting of the quorum court held November 15, 1926, said court took the following action:

"Now on this day, on motion of G. C. Pledger that the county judge be requested to make an order directing an audit of the county records. Vote 16 for, J. W. Hutchins being absent, same being a majority in favor of an audit."

With reference to the appropriation for making an audit, the following occurred: "Now on this day, on motion of G. C. Pledger, that an appropriation of $ 1,000 be made for the purpose of paying for county audit. Vote by roll call. 12 in the affirmative, and 4 against"; setting out the names of those voting for and against.

The record in this case fails to show an order of the county court authorizing the county judge to enter into said contract with appellants, nor is there any order of the county court in this record ratifying or confirming the contract as made by the county judge on the 4th day of December, 1926. The claim was presented to the county court, disallowed by it, and an appeal was taken to the circuit court, where, on a trial de novo, the circuit court also disallowed the claim.

In view of the disposition we make of it, we find it necessary to discuss only one question, and that is, whether the contract between appellants and appellee, executed by the county judge, was valid and binding on the county. By section 28, article 7 of our Constitution, county courts "have exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters relating to * * * the disbursement of money for county purposes and in every other case that may be necessary to the internal improvement and local concerns of the respective counties * * *."

Section 2279, C. & M. Digest, provides: "The county court of each county shall have the following powers and jurisdictions: Exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters relating to county taxes * * *; to audit, settle and direct the payment of all...