Snowden v. Thompson
Decision Date | 10 February 1913 |
Citation | 153 S.W. 823,106 Ark. 517 |
Parties | SNOWDEN v. THOMPSON |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court; Frank Smith, Judge; reversed.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
R. P Taylor and M. P. Huddleston, for appellants.
Notwithstanding section 9 of the act directs the payment of the funds in question to be made by the collectors to the treasurers of their respective counties, it is necessarily implied from other provisions of the act that these funds are not to be retained by the county treasurers, but should be paid to the treasurer of the district. Act 318, Acts 1911, §§ 3, 10, 23.
R. E L. Johnson, for appellee.
1. Plaintiffs have not the legal capacity to sue, hence, the suit not being brought by the proper party plaintiff, the demurrer was well taken. Act, § 2.
2. The petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. It is not alleged that a warrant, signed by the chairman of the board was presented for payment, nor that there is in the treasury funds sufficient to pay all outstanding warrants of a lower number. Act, § 10.
The word "treasurer" as used in §§ 9 and 10 of the act directly refer to, and mean, "county treasurer." Compare same with sections 10 and 11 of general Act No. 279, Act 1909, pp. 839-840.
3. The county treasurer being legally in custody of the taxes and revenues of the district at the time suit was brought mandamus did not lie to compel him to deliver same to the treasurer of the board of directors. Coleman v. Drainage District, 106 Ark. 22.
This appeal involves the construction of a special statute enacted by the General Assembly of 1911 creating a drainage district in the counties of Greene and Lawrence styled the "Greene and Lawrence County Drainage District No. 1." The point of controversy is whether the respective county treasurers of those counties shall handle and disburse the funds of the drainage district or whether the funds shall, under the terms of the act, be paid over to the treasurer of the district for safekeeping and disbursement. This is an action instituted in the circuit court by the directors of the district to compel the county treasurer of Greene county to pay to the treasurer of the district the funds collected upon assessments against real property. The statute in question contains thirty-two sections, which relate to the creation of the district, a description of its boundaries, the organization of the directors and election of officers, and provision for levying and collecting assessments, the enforcement of payment of delinquent assessments, issuance of bonds, and making the improvements prescribed by the terms of the statute.
The statute seems to be largely a copy of the general statute on the subject of organization of drainage districts and procedure thereunder enacted during the session of 1909, and the inaccuracies which bring about this controversy concerning the interpretation of the statute were probably caused by failing to properly discriminate between the terms of the general statute which could be made applicable to a special statute such as this.
The sections of the special statute necessary to a decision of the question now presented are as follows:
The statute it will be observed, does not specifically provide how the funds shall be gotten out of the hands of the several county treasurers, unless section 10 be construed to mean that the word "treasurer," as used in that section is applicable to the county treasurers and constitutes them the custodians of the funds until disbursed by warrants drawn on them by the directors. The language of the last named section is not, either in letter or spirit, applicable to the two county treasurers. Taking the strict letter of the statute, it refers to one officer, "the treasurer," and was not meant to apply to distinct officers. It provides that the warrants shall be numbered consecutively and that no warrant shall be paid unless there is in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Standard Oil Company of Louisiana v. Brodie
... ... 327, 129 S.W ... 784; Leonard v. State, 95 Ark. 381, 129 ... S.W. 1089; State v. Handlin, 100 Ark. 175, ... 139 S.W. 1112; Snowden v. Thompson, 106 ... Ark. 517, 153 S.W. 823; State v. Trulock, ... 109 Ark. 556, 160 S.W. 516 ... In the ... case of State v ... ...
- Poe v. Street Improvement District No. 340
-
State of Arkansas on Relation of Attorney General v. Trulock
... ... 327, 129 S.W. 784; ... Williams v. State, 99 Ark. 149, 137 S.W ... 927; State v. Handlin, 100 Ark. 175, 139 ... S.W. 1112; Snowden v. Thompson, 106 Ark ... 517, 153 S.W. 823 ... Mr ... Sutherland states that rule as follows: "The mere ... literal ... ...
-
Bonner v. Jackson
...and deprive litigants of guaranty of sec. 13, art. 6, Constitution. Boundary of Central District insufficiently described. 36 Ark. 331; 106 Ark. 517. cannot supply legislative defects and omissions. 104 Ark. 583; 36 Cyc. 1113; Lewis' Sutherland, Stat. Constr. par. 411; 61 N.J.L. 107, 38 A. ......