Williams v. Reutzel

• Decision Date: 12 January 1895
• Citation: 29 S.W. 374
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. REUTZEL.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

29 S.W. 374

WILLIAMS v. REUTZEL.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

January 12, 1895.

Appeal from circuit court, Sebastian county; Edgar E. Bryant, Judge.

Action by Casper Reutzel against John F. Williams, collector. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

James B. McDonough, for appellant.

BATTLE, J.

On the 11th day of February, 1892, Casper Reutzel filed a petition in the Sebastian circuit court for the Ft. Smith district, by which he sought to compel John F. Williams, as collector of Sebastian county, to receive certain county warrants in payment of the county taxes assessed against his property for the year 1881. He stated, among other things, that he was a resident and taxpayer of the Ft. Smith district, and the owner of certain warrants upon the treasurer of Sebastian county. The warrants are copied in the petition, and are in the same form. A copy of one will be sufficient to show how they were written. It is as follows: "$20.00. Sebastian County Court, July Term, 1871. Allowed 22d July, 1871. Treasurer of the County of Sebastian: Pay Casper Reutzel or bearer the sum of twenty dollars and ____ cents, out of any money in the treasury appropriated for the support of paupers. Given at Fort Smith, this July 22, 1871. Teste: William Patterson, Clerk."

In respect to these warrants the petitioner used this language: "That the county court of Sebastian, at the time of the issuance of the aforesaid warrants given at Fort Smith, was sitting at Fort Smith, under and by virtue of and in accordance with an act of the general assembly of the state of Arkansas, entitled `An act to amend an act to repeal chapter 44 of Gould's Digest, and for other purposes,' — approved March 16, 1869, and the order and judgment of the county court of said county made on the 10th day of January, 1870, declaring the county seat of said county removed to Fort Smith." He further stated that he had tendered these warrants to John F. Williams, as collector of Sebastian county for the Ft. Smith district, in payment of the taxes assessed against his property for the year 1891, and the collector refused to receive the same.

The defendant answered, and, among other things, said "that they [warrants] were issued without authority of law, and without any court being in session; that, at the time of the supposed issuance of said warrants, there was no court in session."

Upon the issue made by the allegation in the defendant's answer, which we have copied, the facts, as shown by the evidence, appear in Patterson v. Temple, 27 Ark., on pages 212 to 217, inclusive. Upon these facts the circuit court found in the following language: "That, at the time of the issuance of the said warrants, the county court of said county of Sebastian was sitting at Fort Smith, under and by virtue of an order of said county court made on the 10th day of January, 1870, and an act of the general assembly, approved March 16, 1869, removing the county site of said county to Fort Smith," — and further found that the warrants were legally issued, and ordered the collector to receive them in payment of the county taxes of the petitioner; and the defendant appealed.

We infer from the petition, evidence, and the findings of the court that the warrants in question were issued upon orders or judgments of the Sebastian county court rendered while it was sitting at Ft. Smith. The beginning of each warrant with the name of the court, the term thereof, and the time when allowed, indicates this. When considered in connection with the admission in the petition that the county court of Sebastian, at the time they were issued, was sitting at Ft. Smith, under an order adjudging that city to be the county seat of the county, and the fact that the date of the signing by the clerk appears at the end of each warrant, this meaning is obvious. County warrants are not allowed by the clerk, but by the county court. Hence the date of the allowance must have been made to show the date of the order or judgment upon which they were issued. We infer from its findings of facts that the circuit court reached the same conclusion.

In every county of this state there is and must be a county seat. At it the county court is required to erect a good and sufficient courthouse and jail. The county, circuit, and other courts held for the county must sit there. There is no other place designated by law for that purpose. The name "county seat" indicates the object of its creation. It is, as defined by the Century Dictionary, "the seat of government of a county; the town in which the county and other courts are held, and where the county officers perform their functions." When the county seat of a county is removed, and the needful public buildings are made...