{ "id": 1507894, "name": "Dunn v. Ouachita Valley Bank", "name_abbreviation": "Dunn v. Ouachita Valley Bank", "decision_date": "1902-12-20", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "135", "last_page": "137", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "71 Ark. 135" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "34 Ark. 362", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "30 Ark. 578", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1881132 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/30/0578-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 Ark. 461", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727137 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/26/0461-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 Ark. 225", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1893448 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/44/0225-01" ] }, { "cite": "47 Ark. 80", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1888684 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/47/0080-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 Ark. 540", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "37 Ark. 649", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1870942 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/37/0649-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 Ark. 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1152501 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/67/0562-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 Ark. 132", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8720809 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/50/0132-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 Ark. 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1152501 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/67/0562-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 274, "char_count": 4626, "ocr_confidence": 0.473, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.050042922922503e-08, "percentile": 0.5046172576084552 }, "sha256": "6a516a53151b4a1c96172b618ea25c0af4c8c5dba320612759e40d18a6e42789", "simhash": "1:4c4e9d8b0c6fcb18", "word_count": 785 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:01:48.196038+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Dunn v. Ouachita Valley Bank." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Wood, J.,\n(after stating the facts.) It was alleged in the complaint, and not denied, that there was in the county treasury at the time these warrants were presented, not appropriated to any fund, the sum of one thousand dollars. Appellee contends that the warrants should have been paid under the authority of section 1243, Sandels & Hill\u2019s Digest, which reads as follows: \u201cAll warrants drawn on the treasury shall be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, or out of the particular fund expressed therein, and shall be received, irrespective of their number and date, in payment of all taxes and debts accruing to the county.\u201d\nWe held in Franklin County v. McRaven, 67 Ark. 562, that, \u201cunder the act of March 16, 1897, providing for the appointment of a court stenographer and allowing such stenographer a salary of $800, fto be paid out of the stenographer\u2019s fund by the several counties composing the circuit,\u2019 a county is not liable for the payment of its pro rata of such salary out of the general revenue or any other fund, if there is no money in the stenographer\u2019s fund.\u201d We said in that case that the language, \u201cand paid into the county treasury as a stenographer\u2019s fund, which shall be kept by the treasurer as a separate fund, to be designated the stenographer\u2019s fund,\u201d shows that the intent of the legislature was not to reimburse the counties, but to provide the only method for raising the fund, and the only fund out of which the stenographer could be paid. This case is ruled by that. For in both the question of whether or not the county is liable where there are no funds in the treasury to the credit of the stenographer\u2019s fund is necessarily involved. The statute in regard to the payment of all warrants drawn on the treasury out of any money in tbe treasury not otherwise appropriated, etc., is a general law as to the' payment of warrants. The statute providing how a stenographer shall be paid is a special or particular statute. The principle announced in Chamberlain v. State, 50 Ark. 132, applies.\n\u201cIn the absence of repugnancy or negative words, the more specific statute or provision will control the general, without regard to their order and dates; and the two acts will be interpreted as operating together, the specific provisions qualifying or furnishing exceptions to those which are general.\u201d Crawford\u2019s Digest, Statutes,* VII, 6.\nThe judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer.", "type": "majority", "author": "Wood, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "Thornton & Thornton, for appellant.", "John T. Biford, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Dunn v. Ouachita Valley Bank.\nOpinion delivered December 20, 1902.\n1. County \u2014 Stenographer\u2019s Salary. \u2014 Under an act providing that the court stenographer\u2019s salary shall he paid out of the stenographer\u2019s fund (Act March 16, 1897), a county is not liable for the payment of its pro rata of such salary out of the general revenue or any other fund, if there is no money in the stenographer\u2019s fund. Franklin County v. McRaven, 67 Ark. 562, followed. (Page 136.).\n2. Statutes \u2014 Specific and General. \u2014 In the absence of repugnancy or negative words, the more specific statute or provision will control the general, without regard to their order and dates; and the two .acts will be interpreted as operating together, the specific provisions qualifying or furnishing exceptions to those which are general. (Page 137.)\nAppeal from Calhoun Circuit Court.\nCharles W. Smith, Judge.\nReversed and remanded.\nSTATEMENT BY THE COURT.\nThis is an appeal from a judgment granting mandamus against the appellant as treasurer of Calhoun county, commanding him to pay certain county warrants of appellee. These warrants were issued upon the orders of allowance of the county court of Calhoun county in favor of W. Ii. Hall or bearer. Counsel for appellee states in his brief that \u201cthese warrants were drawn on the stenographer\u2019s fund, and the fact that it was not so stated in the complaint was a clerical error. It was considered that way by the court and the parties, at the hearing.\u201d The answer states: \u201cThe reason the warrants were not paid was because there was no money in the hands of the treasurer to the credit of the stenographer\u2019s fund.\u201d The court sustained a demurrer to this answer, and, appellant not answering further, judgment was rendered against him.\nThornton & Thornton, for appellant.\nThe demurrer to appellant\u2019s answer should have been overruled. 67 Ark. 562.\nJohn T. Biford, for appellee.\nOrders of allowance of county courts are judgments, and can not be impeached collaterally. 37 Ark. 649; 37 Ark. 540. The county clerk only can order warrants drawn on the treasurer. 47 Ark. 80; 44 Ark. 225; 26 Ark. 461; 30 Ark. 578; 34 Ark. 362." }, "file_name": "0135-01", "first_page_order": 153, "last_page_order": 155 }