{ "id": 1456522, "name": "Walker v. Gladish, County Judge", "name_abbreviation": "Walker v. Gladish", "decision_date": "1939-12-18", "docket_number": "4-5868", "first_page": "580", "last_page": "585", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "199 Ark. 580" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "134 S.W.2d 541" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "277 S. W. 22", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "169 Ark. 925", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1374073 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/169/0925-01" ] }, { "cite": "282 S. W. 963", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "170 Ark. 1126", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1371644 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/170/1126-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 S. W. 2d 5", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "176 Ark. 115", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1399942 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/176/0115-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 S. W. 2d 85", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "184 Ark. 572", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1438609 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/184/0572-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 S. W. 2d 64", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 Ark. 336", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1441786 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/183/0336-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 S. W. 2d 250", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "179 Ark. 79", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8718955 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/179/0079-01" ] }, { "cite": "41 A. L. R. 782", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "273 S. W. 389", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "169 Ark. 152", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1374115 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/169/0152-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 594, "char_count": 11353, "ocr_confidence": 0.507, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08, "percentile": 0.37687062064236176 }, "sha256": "abb18f860dfb098cb14c199293d6bbc1f7b7a19350facf55ab921a621d156e3c", "simhash": "1:84cd4760d25c84e2", "word_count": 1870 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:45.659289+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Walker v. Gladish, County Judge." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Baker, J.\nFrom the chancellor\u2019s refusal to enjoin officers from holding a special election December 30, 1939, Walker has appealed.\nThe county court found that on November 6, 1928, valid county warrants amounting to $68,864.68 were outstanding; that such warrants were issued subsequent to December 7, 1924, to pay for two jails, but that they had been paid. It was further found that action of the collector in receiving some of the warrants from taxpayers in lieu of cash, and payment of others by the treasurer, had resulted in a deficit of $57,376.18 at the time the court\u2019s findings were made November 2, 1939, and that the deficit [was] . in effect an indebtedness of Mississippi county existing at the time of the adoption of Amendment No. 17; . . . that under [the amendment] the county is authorized to issue jail funding bonds to take up said indebtedness ... if a majority of the electors authorize such bonds at an election duly held for that purpose.\u201d . .\nAppellant\u2019s contention is that the deficit Avas not caused by payments from the county general fund nor by acceptance of warrants on taxes.\nEvidence upon which the county court made its finding is a letter from accountants other than those attached to the state auditorial department. It was stipulated that this exhibit be introduced \u201c. . . without the formality of calling either of said accountants to testify.\u201d\nThe letter, although signed by men of high repute and known ability, does not purport to impart information gathered from original sources. It is copied in the margin. The hearsay nature of this communication as evidence is shown by its recitations.\nThe record justifies belief here that the county court used the term \u201cvalid warrants\u201d in reliance upon the accountants\u2019 letter, there being no reference to other evidence. Nor was there reference to any evidence.\nAmendment No. 17, adopted November 6, 1928, authorizes issuance of bonds to fund any indebtedness existing on the effective date.of the amendment \u201c. . . incurred in building, constructing, or extending any county courthouse or jail.\u201d\nIt was decided in Kirk v. High, 169 Ark. 152, 273 S. W. 389, 41 A. L. R. 782, that Amendment No. 10 did not prohibit counties from incurring obligations in excess of the year\u2019s revenues; that if construction costs of jails and courthouses should be extended in such manner that interest and maturities payable in any designated year would not, when added to necessary governmental expenditures for such year, exceed the revenue, the fact of future obligation would not render the contract void. The illustration in the opinion is: \u201cFor instance, if Lonoke county has revenues not exceeding $60,000, and proposes to spend $10,000 a year on a court house, then all bther expenditures must not exceed $50,000 per year.\u201d\nThe restrictions upon counties imposed by Amendment No. 10, as ameliorated in Kirk v. High, were met by adoption, of Amendment No. 17. In Carter v. Cain, 179 Ark. 79, 14 S. W. 2d 250, it was said that \u201cAmendment No. 17 was evidently adopted for the very purpose of meeting the decision of this court and accomplishing what [the people] thought was accomplished by Amendment No. 11. That is, to prevent counties from going into debt, and provide a method for building and paying for courthouses and jails.\u201d See Boydstun v. Condray, 183 Ark. 336, 36 S. W. 2d 64; Irwin v. Alexander, 184 Ark. 572, 43 S. W. 2d 85.\nAmendment No. 10 was followed by a legislative enabling or facilitating act which gave to an aggrieved taxpayer the right to question correctness of the county court order. No such accommodation seems to have been extended in respect of Amendment No. 17, although the constitution of 1874 (art. 7, \u00a7 33) allows appeals to the circuit court from all county court judgments, to be taken under such regulations as may be prescribed by law. See Pope\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 2913.\nIn the absence of authority in Amendment No. 17 fox-appeal from the county court\u2019s adjudication of outstanding indebtedness \u2014 -a requirement precedent to calling an.election \u2014 it follows that the court\u2019s determination of the amount of the indebtedness it is proposed to fund goes to the electors unchallexxged, unless resort is had to injunction. In this situation reviewing courts must scrutinize the record for evidence to sustain processes by which determination of the fact has been arrived at.\n\u25a0 The first error apparent oxx the face of the record is the conflict between the county court\u2019s finding that an indebtedness- of $68,864.68 existed November 6, 1928, and the opinion of accountants that this was the deficit December 31. The accountants attest an indebtedness of $57,331.93 November 1\u00d3.\nThe accountants say (on information and belief)-: that jail warraxxts outstaxxding November 10th were $28,693,99, a sum less by $40,170.69 than that ascertained by the county court to have been outstaxxding on the sixth. ..\n\u25a0' The audit shows outstanding general warrants to have been-$16,212.09 November 10th, an increase of $14,-279.59 between that date and the 31st of December.\nApproved claims November 10th were $12,425.85. That class of obligations December 31st was $9,679.01, a decrease of $2,746.84.\nThe three items \u2014 general warrants, approved claims, and jail warrants, listed by auditors and classified outstanding November 10th, amount to $57,-331.93. The same items December 31st were $68,864.68, a net increase of $11,532.75.\nIf, as the county.court found, $68,864.68 of jail warrants were in existence November 6th, then, in view of the auditors\u2019 statement that on November 10th only $28,693.99 in warrants of this class of indebtedness was outstanding, it follows that during the intervening four days payments were $40,170.69; and yet, the accountants on December 31st say the entire county debt, inclusive of general warrants, approved claims, and jail warrants, was $68,864.68 \u2014 tlxe exact figures the county court used ixx determining the November 6th indebtedness.\nHagler v. Arkansas County, 176 Ark. 115, 2 S. W. 2d 5, overruled Airheart v. Winfree, 170 Ark. 1126, 282 S. W. 963. In the Hagler Case it was held that under act 30 of 1927 a county which had issued bonds to pay an indebtedness existing prior to October 7, 1924, was entitled to pay any indebtedness existing prior to December 7, 1924, such phyment to be made from a surplus in the bond account; or, in the alternative, supplemental bonds might be issued to retire the indebtedness if funds in the surplus account proved insufficient. The legislative act was intended as a relief measure covering the period from October 7, when Amendment No. 10 was adopted, to December 7, its effective date. See Matheney v. Independence County, 169 Ark. 925, 277 S. W. 22.\nAppellees insist that the Hagler case is authority for issuance of bonds in the instant case to fund jail warrants outstanding November 6, 1928. They think the fact of subsequent payment is no bar to the right, the theory being that the debt, once having existed, was not destroyed by the county\u2019s conduct ixi using general funds for retirement of the warrants or in accepting them in payment of taxes.\nIf we should hold (in view of the record we do not so decide at this time) that funding boxids may be issued in an amount not in excess of outstanding jail warrants November 6, 1928, shown November 10th to have been $28,693.99 and the same amount December 31 of that year, it would be necessary to predicate such holding upon facts showing that such jail warrants and the interest thereon matured subsequent to November 6, 1928.\nUnder Amendment No. 10 and the holding in Kirk v. High, if payment of jail warrants from December 7, 1924, to November 6, 1928, necessitated carrying over to a succeeding year other county general warrants or claims, the excess as to jail warrants due in that year, and general warrants and claims, would be void unless the indebtedness accrued prior to December 7, 1924, and had not thereafter been funded.\nAmendment No. 1.0 does not permit relief in the case at bar merely because payment of jail warrants during the four-year period occasioned a general revenue deficit.\nIt must be held, therefore, that the agreed statement upon which the county court predicated its findings of facts does not support the conclusion.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to grant the injunction, but with leave to appellees to have the state auditorial department or the accountants who appear of record in this case make a detailed examination and file a report to be made an exhibit to any future order showing (1) the county\u2019s' indebtedness December 7,1924; (2) the amount of bonds, if any, issued under authority of Amendment No. 10, and how proceeds were applied; (3) the date of issuance of the so-called jail warrants, maturities, etc., and the manner and date of all payments; (4) the amount of claims and outstanding warrants, listed separately as to totals, which at the end of each year subsequent to 1924 constituted an indebtedness; (5) the available revenues with which to meet such warrants and claims; (6) the date and manner of payments of warrants in excess of the revenues for any of the years in question if any.\nThe letter, dated November 16, 1939, and addressed to S. \"L. Gladish, county judge, follows: \u201cFrom audit reports of P. E. Cooley, county auditor, on the affairs of Mississippi county, we find that the indebtedness of the general fund of Mississippi county as at November 10, 1928, was reflected as $57,331.93. An audit report by [another firm of certified public accountants] reflects an indebtedness of the general fund as at December 31, 1928, of $68,864.68. These reports show that this indebtedness was evidenced as follows: Outstanding general warrants November 10, 1928 $16 212.09; December 31, 1928, $30,491.68. Approved claims November 10, 1928 $12,425.85; December 31, 1928, $9,679.01. Jail warrants November 10, 1928, $28,693.09; December 31, 1928, $28,693.99. Total [November 10. 1928, items], $57,331.93; [December 31, 1928] $68,864.68. From a further examination of financial statements and reports prepared by county auditor Cooley and by the county auditorial department of the state comptroller\u2019s office, setting out the indebtedness as at various dates during the period January 1, 1929, to January 1, 1939, and taking into consideration explanations of these statements, . . . we are of the opinion that the total indebtedness of the general fund has never been less than $57,382.21 at any date between January 1, 1929, and January 1, 1939. We are also of the opinion that the entire indebtedness as at December 31, 1928, could be attributed to outstanding jail warrants and to a detriment to the general fund arising from the redemption of jail warrants from this fund.\u201d\nThe amendment is referred to as No. 11.\nAct 210 of 1925. See, also, act 93 of 1927.\nThe record in this case, because of the stipulation, includes the judgment and the matter it was agreed might be introduced without calling the accountants.\nThese warrants were, in fact, issued against the general fund, but [presumably] bore indorsements showing the purpose for which they were issued.", "type": "majority", "author": "Baker, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Holland <& Taylor, for appellant.", "Bruce Ivy and G. B. Segrav'es, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Walker v. Gladish, County Judge.\n4-5868\n134 S. W. 2d 541\nOpinion delivered December 18, 1939.\nHolland <& Taylor, for appellant.\nBruce Ivy and G. B. Segrav'es, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0580-01", "first_page_order": 598, "last_page_order": 603 }