Watson v. Dodge
Decision Date | 23 October 1933 |
Docket Number | 4-3175 |
Parties | WATSON v. DODGE |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Prohibition to Pulaski Chancery Court; Frank H. Dodge Chancellor; writ granted.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
This is an original proceeding instituted by the Attorney General of the State in behalf of Fred Watson, State Revenue Commissioner, seeking a writ of prohibition against the chancellor of Pulaski County and W. E. Lenon, theretofore appointed receiver, in a certain cause therein pending, and arises under the following circumstances.
On June 6, 1933, Bennie S. Mayo and Bernice J. Mercer filed their complaint in the Pulaski Chancery Court against petitioner herein as Revenue Commissioner of the State of Arkansas, and the Arkansas State Highway Commission, alleging in effect:
On behalf of the State Revenue Commissioner, the Attorney General appeared and filed a demurrer to the complaint calling in question the jurisdiction of the Pulaski Chancery Court. The demurrer was overruled, and the chancellor thereupon entered its decree appointing W. E. Lenon as receiver for said bridge, right-of-way and easements, with directions to collect the tolls accruing from the traffic crossing said bridge, and remit the same to the New York Trust Company of New York City monthly. Thereupon, this suit was instituted.
Writ of prohibition granted.
Hal L. Norwood, Attorney General, Roy D. Campbell and Walter L. Pope, for petitioner.
Lee Miles, for respondent.
OPINIONJOHNSON, C. J., (after stating the facts).
On the threshold of this controversy we are met with the contention that the suit pending in the Pulaski County Chancery Court is one, in effect, against the State, and cannot be maintained.
On behalf of respondent, it is insisted, first, that the suit is not one against the State, and, secondly, that, if so, it may be maintained, the State having expressly consented thereto by legislative enactment.
Adverting to the first contention, is this a suit against the State? In Pitcock v. State, 91 Ark. 527, 121 S.W. 742, this court held that a suit against the penitentiary board to restrain a breach of contract was, in effect, a suit against the State and could not be maintained.
Again, in the case of Jobe v. Urquhart, 98 Ark. 525, 136 S.W. 663, this court held that a suit against the penitentiary board to reform a contract made in behalf of the State was, in effect, a suit against the State and could not be maintained.
Again, in the case of Allen Engineering Company v. Kays, 106 Ark. 174, 152 S.W. 992, this court held that a replevin suit against the board of trustees of a State school could not be maintained, because, in effect, it was a suit against the State.
From the authority cited, it is perfectly evident that any suit, whether in law or equity, which has the purpose and effect, directly or indirectly, of coercing the State is one against the State. Our holding in this regard is in full accord with the views of the Supreme Court of the United States. In Hagood v. Southern, 117 U.S. 52, 6 S.Ct. 608, 29 L.Ed. 805, that court held:
The rule announced in the Haygood case, just cited, was approved by the Supreme Court of the United States in the later case of Murray v. Wilson Distilling Company, 213 U.S. 151, 29 S.Ct. 458, 53 L.Ed. 742.
Based upon reason and authority, we have no hesitancy in holding that the suit pending in the Pulaski Chancery Court against Fred Watson, Revenue Commissioner, is one, in effect, against the State as certainly and effectively as if the State were named and designated as the defendant.
This brings us to the question, can the State be sued in her own courts? Section 20 of art. 5 of the Constitution of 1874 provides: "The State of Arkansas shall never be made defendant in any of her courts."
This provision of the Constitution was before this court in the Pitcock, Jobe and Allen Engineering cases, cited supra, and in each of these cases it was specifically held that the State could not be sued in her courts.
In addition to the authorities just cited, this court held in Caldwell v. Donaghey, 108 Ark. 60, 156 S.W. 839, that the State could not be sued in her courts for specific performance of a contract made in her behalf.
In the more recent case of Linwood & Auburn Levee District v. State, 121 Ark. 489, 181 S.W. 892, this court held that the State could not be made a party defendant in her courts in a condemnation proceeding to condemn lands belonging to the State.
Without going into further details, it may be said that up to the case of Grable v. Blackwood, 180 Ark. 311, 22 S.W.2d 41, there had been a uniform holding of this court that the State could not be made a party defendant in her courts, and therefore could not be sued in the State courts. It would be presumptuous for us to elucidate upon the wisdom of this rule. It suffices to say that the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was promulgated in furtherance of this wholesome protection. The effect is that the State courts will not entertain jurisdiction of such suits because of State constitutional prohibition, and the federal courts will not entertain such jurisdiction, because of the prohibition found in the Eleventh Amendment, thereby protecting the sovereignty of the State from assaults of all individuals and corporations.
The motives impelling the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment to the Federal Constitution...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Nelson Brothers
... ... Appeal ... from Pulaski Chancery Court; Frank H. Dodge", Chancellor; ... reversed ... Suit by ... Nelson Brothers against the Arkansas State Highway ... Commission ... \xC2" ... The appellant insists (1) that ... the case at bar is distinguishable from the cases, ... supra, and comes within the exception of ... Watson v. Dodge, 187 Ark. 1055, 63 S.W.2d ... 993, and the late case of Ark. State Highway ... Commission v. Dodge, 190 Ark. 131, 77 S.W.2d ... ...
-
Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Nelson Bros.
... ... November 4, 1935 ... Rehearing Denied December 2, 1935 ... Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Frank H. Dodge, Chancellor ... Suit by Nelson Brothers against the Arkansas State Highway Commission. Decree for plaintiffs, and defendant ... The appellant insists (1) that the case at bar is distinguishable from the cases, supra, and comes within the exception of Watson v. Dodge, 187 Ark. 1055, 63 S.W.(2d) 993, and the late case of Ark. Highway Commission v. Dodge, 190 Ark. 131, 77 S.W.(2d) 981, and (2) that the ... ...
-
Wayland v. Snapp
... ... Although our research has not disclosed any decision of this Court directly in point we are led to conclude from a statement made in Watson v. Dodge, 187 Ark. 1055, 63 S.W.2d 993, 995, that we will follow the principle above announced. In that case the Court, after affirming the ... ...
-
ARKANSAS STATE GAME AND FISH COM'N v. WR WRAPE ST. CO.
... ... Williams, Atty. Gen., of Arkansas, and Oscar E. Ellis, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Arkansas, for plaintiff ... Watson, Ess, Barnett, Whittaker & Marshall and Samuel J. Molby, Jr., all of Kansas City, Mo., Wooten, Land & Matthews and Cooper B. Land, all of Hot ... See also Watson v. Dodge, 187 Ark. 1055, 63 S.W.2d 993; Cargile et al. v. New York Trust Co., 8 Cir., 67 F.2d 585; State Highway Commission in Arkansas et al. v. Kansas City ... ...