State v. Hicks
| Decision Date | 12 March 1887 |
| Citation | 3 S.W. 524 |
| Parties | STATE, Use of Nevada Co., <I>v.</I> HICKS. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
U. M. & G. B. Rose and Smoote & McRae, for appellant. A. B. & R. B. Williams, for appellee.
In August, 1876, the county court of Nevada county made a contract with appellees to build a county bridge for the sum of $1,500, to be built by the first day of November following. Commissioners examined the bridge on sixth day of said month, and reported same not according to specification of contract, and the county court, acting on said report, rejected the bridge, and declared the bond, given by contractors for the proper completion of the bridge, forfeited, and directed suit to be brought on it. This suit was brought on seventeenth day of November, 1878, in the circuit court of Hempstead county. For answer, defendants, who are the appellees here, stated that the bridge was completed in time and manner as required by contract; that it had not been rejected; that the county court had not ordered suit on bond; that the bridge had not been ordered to be taken down; that it was still standing where it was built, and was in use by the public, etc., and that it was reasonably worth $1,300; and asking that this be considered matter of cross-complaint, and that they have judgment for same. Case was transferred and heard on equity side of docket, and on third day of February, 1880, decree was entered in favor of defendants in the circuit court, and against the county, for $1,300. From this decree an appeal was taken to this court, and decree was affirmed at May term, 1882, and reported in 38 Ark. 557, and the county of Nevada was ordered to pay said sum of $1,300, and proper mandate issued. Afterwards, on September 6, 1884, the county of Nevada, in name of state for its use, filed in the chancery court of Hempstead county a bill of review, asking that the order and decree made in the circuit and supreme courts in the original suit be set aside and held for naught. To support this it is urged (1) that there is newly-discovered evidence; and (2) that by reason of the act of February 12, 1879, which was passed while the suit was pending, the circuit court had no power or jurisdiction to entertain a claim against a county, or render judgment therein. A demurrer was sustained, bill dismissed, and appeal to this court.
As to the first proposition, it is stated that about the time the county made its contract with Hicks et al., appellees, to build the county bridge, it also granted a charter to one Grayson to erect a toll-bridge on the same creek at the same point; that appellees bought said charter of Grayson, and took from him an assignment of his privileges under the same, and have ever since held the bridge as their private property under Grayson's franchise; that the county, prior to the rendition of the original decree, had no knowledge of this assignment of Grayson's franchise to appellees, and no reason to suppose it had been done, wherefore they were unable to plead it in bar of appellee's claim. As to this it seems to be immaterial whether the county had knowledge of the assignment of Grayson's privileges to appellees or not. This was not at issue. The question determined in the original case was the performance or non-performance of a contract to build a public bridge for the county, and has nothing whatever to do with Grayson's right to build a toll-bridge. Appellees had a right to acquire as many assignments to build toll-bridges as they should choose, and, for the purpose of the matter determined in the original suit, the county had no need to know anything about it; and if such was the fact, it was of no importance whether it was ever discovered or not. It can be seen, however, that if appellees undertook to build a county bridge for free public use, and then proceeded to hold it as a toll-bridge for their own use, and at the same time demand pay for building it, then this would be a proper matter to reply to appellee's counter-claim; and for this purpose it would not be material whether appellees were collecting toll under an assignment to them of a grant to Grayson, or without semblance of authority. They had no right to appropriate a public bridge for their benefit in such a way; and if it was done, it must have been known to the county court, for it is difficult to conceive how the county court could conduct this somewhat protracted litigation about a bridge, and not know, until the matter was determined in the courts, that appellees were all the time taking tolls on the same. There is no pretense of such want of knowledge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CITY OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE v. Ingram
...of Arkansas and by the federal courts. See, for example, Nevada County v. Williams, 72 Ark. 394, 81 S.W. 384; State ex rel. Nevada County v. Hicks, 48 Ark. 515, 3 S.W. 524; St. Louis National Bank v. Marion County, 72 Ark. 27, 79 S.W. 791; Rolfe v. Spybuck Drainage District No. 1, 101 Ark. ......
-
Hammons v. Watkins
...262 P. 616 33 Ariz. 76 A. T. HAMMONS, Superintendent of Banks of the State of Arizona, and Ex-officio Receiver of the CITIZENS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, a Corporation, Insolvent, Appellant, v. E. A. WATKINS, Appellee Civil ... either to limit or enlarge the general powers of a subsequent ... legislature in any respect, was void. Nevada Co. v ... Hicks, 48 Ark. 515, 3 S.W. 524; Mix v ... Illinois Cent. R.R., 116 Ill. 502, 6 N.E. 42. Where ... the right to amend or repeal a legislative grant is ... ...
-
Deason v. City of Rogers
...Act 16 of 1879. Prior to this enactment statutes provided for suits against counties in our circuit courts. See State ex rel. Nevada County v. Hicks, 48 Ark. 515, 3 S.W. 524. No statute governing claims against municipalities is in effect. Yet, we have gone no farther than to say that an ac......
-
Smith v. Rucker
...upon evidence which they have designedly or negligently omitted to introduce. Greer v. Turner, 47 Ark. 17, 14 S.W. 383; State v. Hicks, 48 Ark. 515, 3 S.W. 524; Boynton v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co., Ark. 203, 105 S.W. 77; 16 Cyc. 530. The issues that were made by the pleadings in the case u......