Sharp County v. Northeast Arkansas Planning and Consulting Co., 81-207
| Decision Date | 22 February 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-207,81-207 |
| Citation | 628 S.W.2d 559,275 Ark. 172 |
| Parties | SHARP COUNTY, Arkansas, Appellant, v. NORTHEAST ARKANSAS PLANNING AND CONSULTING COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Jim Stallcup, Prosecuting Atty., Walnut Ridge, and Stewart K. Lambert, Deputy
Prosecuting Atty., Cherokee Village, for appellant.
William R. Hass, Thayer, Mo., and H. David Blair, Batesville, for appellee.
The appellee filed a claim in Sharp County Court against the appellant for $7,000 based upon an alleged agreement between the two parties whereby appellee was to provide consulting services for the appellant in preparing a preapplication and application for federal assistance under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. The county court found that the claim was not valid and denied payment. The appellee appealed to the circuit court where a jury awarded it a judgment for $4,530 plus interest.
Appellant first contends the trial court erred in permitting appellee to amend its claim in circuit court by reducing the amount from $7,000 to $4,530. It further asserts that the claim in county court was based upon a February 9, 1975, order and the amended claim was based upon a December 30, 1976, order. It argues that these amendments constituted a new cause of action permitting the circuit court to exercise original jurisdiction which is vested in the county court. Art. 7, § 28, Arkansas Constitution (1874).
We have held that on appeal from the county court, the circuit court could not allow a substitution of parties since this would permit the circuit court to exercise original jurisdiction, McLain v. Miller County, 180 Ark. 828, 23 S.W.2d 264 (1930); nor can the circuit court allow claims to be amended which increases the amount of relief sought, Madison County v. Nance, 182 Ark. 775, 32 S.W.2d 1073 (1930) (). However, the circuit court, in its discretion, may permit amendments which do not change the original cause of action. Freeman v. Lazarus, 61 Ark. 247, 32 S.W. 680 (1895); and Saline County v. Kinkead, 84 Ark. 329, 105 S.W. 581 (1907).
Appellee submitted its claim to the county court on November 16, 1977. One document, bearing that date, was an unnotarized instrument captioned "Affidavit to County Account" bearing the notation February 9, 1975, court order in the amount of $7,000. Another document, dated November 16, 1977, was an invoice or statement of charges showing professional services were rendered between the dates of December 31, 1976, to March 31, 1977, and itemizing the number of hours and hourly rate of charges totaling $7,000. Appellant argues that there is no February 9, 1975, court order evidencing this agreement or a basis for a valid claim. In other words, appellant asserts that the claim, as amended in circuit court, is based upon a 1976 county court resolution and a different amount, neither of which was presented to the county court.
However, the appellant overlooks appellee's cover letter dated November 16, 1977, enclosing the county claim and itemized invoice. That letter reads:
On the 30th day of December, 1976, the County Court of Sharp County entered into a contract with Northeast Arkansas Planning and Development Corporation to prepare and file a pre-application for federal assistance to the Department of Housing and Urban Development in Little Rock. Provisions of this order required the County to pay a fee of $7,000.00 According to information that we have, this contract has been fulfilled and the County is in receipt and has accepted a $250,000 grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I feel that the employment of our firm has been completed and fulfilled as per the agreement and payment of $7,000.00 is due our company. You will find our invoice for these services included within this letter and should you have any questions pertaining to the statement of the services rendered, please feel free to contact me at any time.
Even so, the appellant argues that an affidavit in circuit court by a successor county judge states that the county could not pay the claim since it referred to a February 9, 1975, county court order which has been adjudicated by the courts. (Sharp County v. Northeast Ark. Plng. & Cnsltg., 269 Ark. 336, 602 S.W.2d 627 (1980) ). However, appellant overlooks that the affiant also stated that he knew from his own personal knowledge that a resolution was passed by Sharp County, Arkansas, dated December 30, 1976...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ball v. Foehner
...671, 803 S.W.2d 934 (1991); Tillotson v. Farmers Ins. Co., 276 Ark. 450, 637 S.W.2d 541 (1982); and Sharp Co. v. Northeast Ark. Planning & Consulting Co., 275 Ark. 172, 628 S.W.2d 559 (1982). The court of appeals has cited the case for the same proposition. See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co......
-
Villines v. Lee
...An appeal from county court would be to circuit court. Ark. Const. art. VII, § 33; Sharp County v. Northeast Arkansas Planning & Consulting Co., 275 Ark. 172, 628 S.W.2d 559 (1982). However, if, as it appears, the Comptroller prepared an accounting that shows the amounts that will be deduct......
-
Crittenden County v. Williford
...after appeal, Williford enlarged upon his original cause of action. The county cites us to Sharp County v. Northeast Arkansas Planning and Consulting Company, 275 Ark. 172, 628 S.W.2d 559 (1982) and Madison County v. Nance, 182 Ark. 775, 32 S.W.2d 1073 (1930) where we held that cases tried ......
-
Lott v. Circuit Court of Benton County
...the Lotts cite art. 7, § 28, and two cases. The more recent of the two cited cases is Sharp County v. Northeast Arkansas Planning and Consulting Co., 275 Ark. 172, 628 S.W.2d 559 (1982). There, the claim was for a fee said to be owed by Sharp County to Northeast Arkansas Planning and Consul......