{ "id": 1868279, "name": "McCoy vs. County Court of Jackson Co.", "name_abbreviation": "McCoy v. County Court of Jackson Co.", "decision_date": "1860-07", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "475", "last_page": "481", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "21 Ark. 475" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "15 Wend. 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wend.", "case_ids": [ 2018834 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wend/15/0198-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 Ark. 382", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "11 Ark. 617", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 502, "char_count": 10058, "ocr_confidence": 0.562, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.4812229158154657e-07, "percentile": 0.6611487773997634 }, "sha256": "4f4373ba7cc855a9119fd5db4665bb1453c6f62caa611fde1f54fbff1f0470ea", "simhash": "1:4512dc6a93494c4d", "word_count": 1739 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:46:32.809826+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "McCoy vs. County Court of Jackson Co." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Chief Justice English\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nOn the 19th of December,1857, Micajah B. McCoy presented to the Circuit Court of Jackson county a petition for certiorari, in substance as follows:\n\u201c Your petitioner states that he finds upon the records of the County Court for said county what purports to be a settlement made by that Court with your petitioner, as late internal improvement commissioner for said county, bearing date January 26th, 1857, and also an order, bearing date January 27th, 1857, directing his successor to call on him for money, etc.; a duly authenticated copy of both of which orders is herewith exhibited,\u201d etc.\n\u201c That said so called settlement was made by said County Court ex parte, and without the' participation of your petitioner. That no settlement could be legally made so as to bind petitioner, as he was advised, unless made upon a copy of his books of accounts as such comtaissioner furnished to said County Court to be audited and adjusted; and said settlement so called was not made upon any such copy furnished from petitioner\u2019s books, or from his said book as required by law.\n\u201c That said settlement, so called, as it appears of record, is grossly unjust, and on its face is illegal, and unauthorized by law, charging your petitioner, among other things, with large amounts of interest wholly unauthorized by law.\u201d\nPrayer for a certiorari, etc., and that the settlement and order be quashed, etc.\nThe transcript of the record of the County Court, exhibited with the petition is as follows:\nSTATE OF ARKANSAS,)\nCounty of Jackson. $\nIn the Jackson County Court, January term thereof, January 2Qth, 1857.\nOn this day came Micajah B. McCoy, late internal improvement commissioner for Jackson county, and filed his account current as such commissioner as follows, to-wit:\nM. B. McCOY, Internal Improvement Commissioner,\nIn account current with Jackson County for Internal Improvement Funds:\nJan\u2019y 26, 1857 \u2014 To balance due on last settlement,\nJuly 14th, 1855..............$ 4,593 17\nTo interest at 10 per cent, on same, up to 26th January, 1857...... 716 96\nOct\u2019r 2, 1854 \u2014 -To amount received on Auditor\u2019s warrant No. 321............ 671 59\nMar. 26, 1855 \u2014 To interest at 10 per cent, up to January 26th, 1857.......... 136 74\nTo amount received on Auditor\u2019s warrant No. 444............ 198 38\nTo interest on same at 10 percent. up to 26th January, 1857..... 34 69\nTo amount of Auditor\u2019s warrant-\u2022 430 00\nTo 12 months interest'on same at\n10 per cent................. 43 00\n$ 6,834 53\nCREDITS.\n1856.\nDec\u2019r 1 \u2014 By am\u2019t paid Raney, as per order of commissioners of Litchfield\u2019\nBridge.................. -..\u2018$1,000 00\nBy interest on same, 26th Jan\u2019y, 1857 ...........\u2022'.......... 15 70\nBy Noah Smith, per order commis\u2019r of bridge across Cache-\u2022 100 00\nBy interest on same .up to 26th January, 1857--\u2022-\u2022.....-..... \u2022 1 70\nBy commissions on $1,117 40, at 2 per cent.................\u2019\u2022 22 34\nBy expenses two trips to Little Rock, to collect money on warrants 321 and 444........... 37'00 1,176 79\n$5,647 79\nJan\u2019y 26th, 1857 \u2014 To balance due Jackson^county as internal improvement fund by M. B. McCoy, late internal improvement commissioner, five thousand six hundred and forty-seven dollars and seventy-nine cents.\n\u201c Afterwards, to-wit: On the 27th day of January, A. D. 1857, the following proceedings were had, to-wit:\n\u201c Ordered by the Court, that Henry H. Miller, internal improvement commissioner, call on Micajah B. McCoy, late internal improvement commissioner, to pay over to him all moneys in his hands belonging to the internal improvement fund of Jackson county, together with all the books, papers, etc., belonging to said office, and, on the failure or refusal of said Micajah B. McCoy, late internal improvement commissioner, to pay over said money, and deliver to said Henry H. Miller, the present internal improvement commissioner, in and for the county of Jackson, and State of Arkansas, said Miller is hereby authorized and directed by the court to employ such counsel, as he may think best, and institute suit immediately against said M. B. McCoy, for the funds in his hands, together with all the books, -papers, etc., that properly belong to the said office of internal improvement commissioner.\u201d\nThen follows the certificate of the clerk of the County Court authenticating the above as a correct transcript from the record, etc.\nThe Circuit Court refused to issue the certiorari, and McCoy appealed to this Court.\nThe statute requires the commissioner to keep, in a well bound book, an account of all moneys, etc., received and paid out by him, etc., a true copy of which it is made his duty to present to the County Court, at its first regular term after the expiration of twelve months from his election, and annually thereafter, so long as he remains in office; and such account is to be audited, and, if found correct, approved by the court, and filed in the office of the clerk thereof. Gould\u2019s Dig., chap. 101, sec. 48, Art. 111.\nThe final account of the appellant seems to have been made out and filed for settlement pursuant to the statute. It was presented to the County Court by the appellant, and appears to have been approved by the court, and spread upon its record, just as he made it out and filed it, without any change whatever. On the next day an order was made directing his successor to call on him for all moneys, books, etc., etc., in his hands belonging to the office. See sec. 33, Ib.\nThe objection in the petition that the settlement was made ex parte and without the participation of the appellant, is surely without force, when it appears, from the transcript of the record exhibited with the petition, that he made out and filed his account for settlement himself, and that no change was made in the account by the Court. That the balance against him was stated on the record, just as he had footed it up in the account.\nNor is there any thing in the objection that he is charged with interest at an illegal rate. The statute makes it the duty of the commissioner to loan out any money in his hands not required to be expended by the County Court, upon interest at ten per cent, per annum, and he is subject to a heavy penalty for failing so to do, etc. lb. secs. 50,51.\nIn the account, the appellant has charged himself with interest at the rate of ten per cent, upon several sums of money, for stated periods, and it must be presumed that the charge is correct, and in accordance with the statute. If he made a mistake in charging himself with this interest, he cannot correct it by certiorari, because, upon certiorari, the settlement must be quashed or affirmed on inspection, of the transcript of the record returned with the writ, and matters dehors the record are not to be considered.\nIt appearing from the transcript of the record presented with the petition, that the writ of certiorari would have been of no benefit to the appellant, the judgment of the Court below refusing the writ must be affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Chief Justice English" } ], "attorneys": [ "Stillwell & Woodruff, for the appellant.", "Rose, for the appellee.", "Hempstead, Solicitor General, for the appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "McCoy vs. County Court of Jackson Co.\nWhere the final account of an internal improvement commissioner is made out and filed by him in the county court for settlement, and is approved by the court as presented by him, a writ of certiorari will not be issued to remove the proceedings into the circuit court, as it would be of no benefit to the party.\nA mistake in making suck settlement cannot be corrected by certiorari \u2014 the proceeding upon which is, to affirm or quash upon the record returned with the writ, and not upon matters dehors the record.\nAppeal from Jackson Circuit Court.\nHon. William C. Bevens, Circuit Judge.\nStillwell & Woodruff, for the appellant.\nIt is submitted that the proceeding of the .county court, in stating the account of appellant, as internal improvement commissioner, without notice to him, and in charging- him interest on money received, at 10 per cent, if not void, was clearly erroneous, and consequently the writ of certiorari odght to have been granted as prayed.\nRose, for the appellee.\nThe petitioner had the right of appeal to the circuit court, and he gives no excuse whatever for not having availed himself of it. This alone is sufficient to determine the case against him. Carnal!, vs. Crawford Co., 11 Ark. 617; Marr Ex parte, 12 lb. 88; Warner vs. Burton, lb. 147; Roberts vs. Williams, 15 lb. 48; Redd vs. St. Francis Co., 17 lb. 416.\nBut the petition and exhibits thereto'3rsh\u00f3w that upon the merits of the case the prayer of the petitioner was properly denied. The writ of certiorari is one, the granting of which, lies in the sound discretion of the court; and it will never be issued when it is certain that it can avail nothing.\nThe first ground set up for the issuance of the writ is, that McCoy had no participation in said settlement.\nNow, upon inspection of the copies of the record attached to the petition, it will be seen that McCoy came and filed the settlement in question. The record which could alone effectually sustain the allegations of the petitioner is at issue with him. Then it would be useless to issue the writ, since, in no case eould it do petitioner any good.\nThe remaining ground urged is, that petitioner was unjustly-charged with interest. If so, he had his remedy by appeal, as above shown.\nHempstead, Solicitor General, for the appellee.\nThe application for a writ of certiorari is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and never will be granted in a case like this. No foundation is laid for it \u2014 nothing shown or suggested to make the issuing of the writ proper. Randle vs. Williams, 18 Ark. 382; 1 Rill 200; 15 Wend. 198.\nMcCoy was not entitled to the writ in any event, because he lost his right of appeal by his own negligence, and whenever that is the case, a party can never resort to the writ of certiorari, as was ruled in Roberts vs. Williams, 13 Arks. 357; Carnall vs. Crawford Co., 6 Eng. 613. He was present in court, and if there was any-thing wrong in the settlement, he had the right of appeal, and ought to have appealed. Gould\u2019s Dig. 318, 319." }, "file_name": "0475-01", "first_page_order": 477, "last_page_order": 483 }