{ "id": 1383874, "name": "Wilkes v. Bank of Augusta & Trust Company", "name_abbreviation": "Wilkes v. Bank of Augusta & Trust Co.", "decision_date": "1924-04-07", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "455", "last_page": "457", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "163 Ark. 455" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "33 Ark. 450", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "51 Ark. 34", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8719807 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/51/0034-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 Ark. 394", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1505633 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/72/0394-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 Ark. 406", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1519174 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/87/0406-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 Ark. 6", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "133 Ark. 90", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1575100 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/133/0090-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 Ark. 265", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "153 Ark. 371", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1362325 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/153/0371-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 Ark. 557", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1558170 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/122/0557-01" ] }, { "cite": "118 Ark. 425", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "118 Ark. 524", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1562527 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/118/0524-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 Ark. 406", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1519174 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/87/0406-01" ] }, { "cite": "153 Ark. 371", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1362325 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/153/0371-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 Ark. 557", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1558170 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/122/0557-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 297, "char_count": 5186, "ocr_confidence": 0.502, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08, "percentile": 0.3918724605179684 }, "sha256": "a2dbb0ece7f8e4c9fe537fec314bc2bb72e0c5f978a2f7dd9cff0623fcab316a", "simhash": "1:2e7186ceec815de6", "word_count": 880 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:29:01.358749+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Wilkes v. Bank of Augusta & Trust Company." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McCulloch, C. J.\nThe county court made an order calling in county warrants for cancellation or reissue, pursuant to the terms of the statute. Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, \u00a7 1994. No question is raised as to the regularity of the call and strict compliance with the provisions of the statute, but the point of the present case is whether or not warrants drawn on the road fund fall within the class to which the statute authorizing the calling in of warrants refers.\nIn Woodruff County the political townships are made road districts by special statute. Acts 1911, p. 1025. The general statutes of the State provide that,.in the collection of the tax levied pursuant to the Constitution authorizing such a tax, the collector shall keep the taxes collected on the property' of each of the road districts separate, and pay the same into the county treasury \u201cas so much money paid in to the credit of such districts on account of roads and bridges.\u201d Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, \u00a7 5490. Other sections provide for the appropriation of road funds by the quorum court and the apportionment thereof to the different districts. Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, \u00a7\u00a7 5495, 5486.\nAppellee is the holder of a warrant issued by the county court on the treasurer of the county, payable out of the road fund apportioned to a certain district (a warrant which had not been presented for reissnance in response to the call), and this warrant was presented to appellant, as tax collector of the county, in payment of road tax, and, upon the refusal of the collector to accept said warrant, appellee brought this action to compel the acceptance of the warrant. The circuit court granted the relief, and the collector has appealed.\nThis court has already decided that road warrants are \u201ccounty warrants\u201d within the meaning of the statute supra, which authorizes the calling in of warrants. Monroe County v. Brown, 118 Ark. 524; Izard County v. Vincennes Bridge Co., 122 Ark. 557; A. L. Greenberg Iron Co. v. Wood, 153 Ark. 371.\nCounsel for appellee seek to distinguish the present case from the cases cited above on the ground that in Woodruff County each political township is a road district,- and that, 'when the road funds are apportioned under the statute to the several road districts, they become district -funds, and not county funds. We are unable to find any point in which the cases can be distinguished from the present one. In the other cases cited there was not involved any statute making a political township a separate r-oad district, but the general statute supra was in force, which provides for the apportionment of road funds among -the several road districts, and we decided in those cases that the statute authorizing the calling in of warrants included road warrants. In the first two cases cited above we did not expressly decide the point now raised, for the reason that it was not presented, but, in each of the cases, road warrants were involved, and we decided that the statute applied to them. In the last case cited (A. L. Greenberg Iron Co. v. Wood), the point involved now was expressly decided adversely to the contention of counsel for appellee in this case.\nIt follows that the circuit court erred in awarding the mandamus, and the judgment is reversed, and the cause dismissed.", "type": "majority", "author": "McCulloch, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "W. J. Dungan, for appellant.", "J. F. Summers, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Wilkes v. Bank of Augusta & Trust Company.\nOpinion delivered April 7, 1924.\nCounties \u2014 calling in warrants \u2014 road district warrants. \u2014 County-warrants issued by the county court and payable out of the road fund apportioned to a certain road district, are within the contemplation of Crawford & Moses\u2019 Dig., \u00a7 1994, providing for the calling in of county warrants, and are barred unless presented within the designated time.\nAppeal from Woodruff Circuit Court, Northern District; E. D. Robertson, Judge;\nreversed.\nW. J. Dungan, for appellant.\nRoad warrants are county warrants within the meaning of the statute providing for the calling in and canceling county warrants. C. & M. Digest, \u00a7 1994.\nJ. F. Summers, for appellee.\nHas the county court authority to call in for reissuance, etc., warrants against road districts of a -county where, by law, all political townships are separate road districts, and where funds collected for road purposes on property in those districts are deposited to the credit of the respective road districts and expended on the roads in such districts? Under this state of facts, the statute authorizing the calling in of coimty warrants does not include warrants issued against road districts, and not against the county. Where the court has held that road warrants came within the purview of the statute, C. & M. Digest, \u00a7 1994, it has been in cases where the road warrants were issued against the county. 118 Ark. 425; 122 Ark. 557; 153 Ark. 371; 25 Ark. 265. But see C. & M. Digest, \u00a7 5490; act No. 370, Acts 1911, p. 1065, constituting each political township in Woodruff County a road district; this court\u2019s definition of a comity warrant, 133 Ark. 90; 153 Ark. 371. See also 80 Ark. 6'2. The statute authorizing calling in county warrants is strictly \u25a0construed. 87 Ark. 406; 72 Ark. 394; 51 Ark. 34; C. & M. Digest, \u00a7 1999. Mandamus was the proper remedy. 33 Ark. 450." }, "file_name": "0455-01", "first_page_order": 497, "last_page_order": 499 }