Revis v. Harris
| Decision Date | 03 April 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-9168,4-9168 |
| Citation | 217 Ark. 25,228 S.W.2d 624 |
| Parties | REVIS v. HARRIS et al. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
D. B. Bartlett, Clarksville, for appellant.
Brock & Branting, Clarksville, for appellees.
Appellant, Owen Revis, a resident and taxpayer of Clarksville, a city of the second class, for himself and others similarly situated, brought this action in equity, alleging in his complaint, in effect, that appellee, Sam Harris, while the Mayor of Clarksville and a member of its City Council, was, by an ordinance on July 17, 1947, 'constituted, appointed, and elected to serve as Municipal Judge until the next regular election.'
He further alleged that Harris served as such Municipal Judge from July 18, 1947 to April 8, 1948, receiving therefor a salary of $200 per month, or a total of $1733.33. That 'J. W. Thompson by appointment by the City Council on January 10, 1949, is assistant treasurer, to treasurer, P. J. Haynes, to handle sewer funds exclusively * * *.' That 'Sam Harris was illegally and unlawfully paid of the funds of the treasurers of the city of Clarksville and Johnson County, Arkansas, and for reason Act 128 of the Acts of 1947, did not apply to the city of Clarksville, and for the further reason that he being mayor and member of the City Council is and was prohibited by law to be appointed to a Municipal Office which is created during the term for which he is and was elected; that said ordinance was void and of no effect, and the said City Council was without authority of law, and beyond their power to pass said ordinance, or to make such appointment, and for said reasons the said Sam Harris, was not entitled to hold said office as Municipal Judge as provided by said ordinance and was holding said office without any right and without any authority of law, which ordinance has been so declared to be unconstitutional by our State Supreme Court, and the said Sam Harris was not entitled to be paid any sum or sums out of the taxpayers' money, and were illegal exactions, and this plaintiff in behalf of himself and all others interested are entitled to recover judgment against the defendant, Sam Harris, for said sum as aforesaid, for the use and benefit of the city of Clarksville and of Johnson County, Arkansas.
'That the defendant, Sam Harris, is and has been since he acted as Municipal Judge, continuing to make illegal exactions against the inhabitants of the said city of Clarksville, by being interested directly or indirectly in the profits of contracts of jobs for work or services performed for the city of Clarksville, Arkansas, by making contracts with and accepting employment by the defendant, J. W. Thompson, manager for the board of commissioners of the Municipality-owned Light, Water and Sewer System plants of the city of Clarksville, Arkansas, and being paid by the said J. W. Thompson for such contracts for work or jobs for his services performed for said Municipality-owned Light, Water and Sewer System plants of the city of Clarksville, Arkansas, and is also accepting appointments for profits and being appointed by the said City Council. * * *
He further alleged that Harris while Mayor and a member of the City Council, as indicated, had unlawfully entered into certain contracts with the municipality-owned light and water system of Clarksville, to perform certain work...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooper v. Henslee
...13). It has long been held a court of equity has jurisdiction to enjoin payment of public funds in violation of law. Revis v. Harris, 217 Ark. 25, 228 S.W.2d 624 (1950); Rose v. Brickhouse, 182 Ark. 1105, 34 S.W.2d 472 (1931); Sitton v. Burnett, 216 Ark. 574, 226 S.W.2d 544 (1950); Starnes ......
-
Nelson v. Berry Petroleum Co.
...liability to replenish the funds exhausted by the misapplication entitles them to relief against such misapplication." In Revis v. Harris, 217 Ark. 25, 228 S.W.2d 624, suit was instituted by Owen Revis, a citizen and taxpayer, against Sam Harris for recovery of money, which Revis alleged wa......
-
Looper v. Thrash, 98-260
...that did not happen. Again, no one questions Mr. Thrash's qualifications to serve at the time he was appointed. Revis v. Harris, 217 Ark. 25, 228 S.W.2d 624 (1950)("Revis I "), and Revis II, 219 Ark. 586, 243 S.W.2d 747 (1951), involved the claim of a taxpayer that Sam Harris, while serving......
-
Isgrig v. City of Little Rock
...Brookfield v. Harahan Viaduct Imp. Dist., 186 Ark. 599, 54 S.W.2d 689; Sitton v. Burnett, 216 Ark. 574, 226 S.W.2d 544; Revis v. Harris, 217 Ark. 25, 228 S.W.2d 624; and City of Stuttgart v. McCuing, 218 Ark. 34, 234 S.W.2d 209. We conclude that the plaintiff and intervener, as citizens and......