{
  "id": 1491208,
  "name": "Hodges v. Prairie County",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hodges v. Prairie County",
  "decision_date": "1906-07-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "62",
  "last_page": "65",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "80 Ark. 62"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 373,
    "char_count": 5824,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.66,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4975956836136062e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6644752261618342
    },
    "sha256": "4388752198bf8c60d1742c6c576d1789e4e93cbad654542200a2d5ec5dcbdec4",
    "simhash": "1:2cfbaabd4ca86680",
    "word_count": 953
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:02:24.457794+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hodges v. Prairie County."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hill, C. J.\nThis appeal involves the construction -of section 3508, Kirby\u2019s Digest, which is: \u201cThe county treasuteF \u00a1shall be allowed fees as follows: In all cases where the amoUht'feceived does not exceed $1,000 in any one year, four pe'r;centum;-on\u2022'all sums over $1,000, not exceeding two per'centum', 'to\u2018fee;pkid cut of the respective funds.\u201d This: legislation is pa;rt:\u00ed,\u00f3\u2018f the system providing for compensation fon officers.- \u00a1Tt is the statute fixing the county treasu-ret\u2019s emolumentes;' aiid iSl'no't\"directedf towards any other end-.' N>> \u2019'-i r\\- ,1 \u25a0\nIt is the duty of the-treasufet-to re'ceive \u2019\u00e1lFth\u00e9' ct\u00ed\u00fcnty revenue, and pay and'disbuTs\u00e9th\u00e9 s'\u00e1m\u00e9 bh. warrants'or\u2018orders'drawti by order of the>c\u00f3ufitybd'\u00fcrt.'l! KH\u00fat\u00edy\u2019s''\u00bffig\u00e9s't,- \u00a7( ii'ijgC \u00cdH\u00e9'ni\u00fcs\u00ed report to the'quorum'Court\u2018a statement* of all'-funds'received by him, \u201cand from-'whom-add1 on what-account/\u2019\" Kirby\u2019s\u25a0 Digest, \u00a7 1499; par; 3. ' - \"\u25a0 ;'i: \u2022' -\n- \u2018 \u2018County\" taxes' ate* payable 'in \u201ccurrency 'of the' United States * or scrip' dr\"' w\u00e1fr\u00e1iifs' of the' \u2019 county. Kifby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 1504.\" When'th\u00e9'r\u00e9v\u00e9\u00ediu\u00e9'is received hi \"whatever \u2018kintr of funds, it,is at once carried to the account for which it was raised;\u2019altid'is paid out only on order on that particular fund. Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 1505. For these services the compensation is based on the amount received annually; four per centum on $1,000, and not exceeding two per centum on all sums over $1,000. This must be taken as referable to all the county revenue; for the statute is looking to compensation based on .annual receipts. \u2022 Upon the total revenue the salary is fixed; but in the settlement of the salary each fund must pay its own proportion, and pay in its own kind. This is manifestly fair, for some funds may all be raised in cash, some all in warrants; or the higher percentage might be taken before other funds would be received, and the burden of this salary not fall equally upon each fund. Therefore, the Legislature wisely charged this salary to the respective funds.\nIn this case the contest was over the compensation to be charged against the road tax, levied and collected under authority of Constitutional Amendment No. 5.\nIt is provided by section 7332, Kirby\u2019s Digest, that-the treasurer shall keep a separate account with each road district, and present his accounts to the quorum court showing the funds of each road district separately. From this it is contended that each fund for which the treasurer must keep a separate account should be taken as a distinct and separate fund, in so far as the treasurer\u2019s commission is concerned, and that each fund should be tolled 4 per cent, on the first $1,000 and 2 per cent, thereafter. The Road Tax Amendment contemplates the levying and collection of the county road tax \u2014 a single fund. Subsequent legislation required the separation of the tax according to districts (Kirby\u2019s Digest, 7332, 7333), but this did not prevent this fund being a single fund as it came into the treasurer\u2019s hand. Like the general revenue fund derived from the five-mill tax, it was one fund as received by him, but the county court would order it separated into many funds. The separation of funds received by \u2018the treasurer is not the test of the amount of his compensation. All funds are taken to ascertain the total amount. When ascertained, then his percentage is tolled from each fund in kind; the higher p\u00e9rcentage 'of course chargeable proportionately to each fund, so that no fund bear a greater proportionate burden than another.\nAppellant points to section 3509, Kirby\u2019s Digest, as furnishing a legislative construction of the rule governing the treasurer\u2019s commission in accordance with his theory. The county treasurer is ex officio treasurer of the school fund of his county. Const, art. 7, \u00a7 46. The school fund is not a county fund, but belongs to each school district separately. Each district levies and disburses its own taxes, and the treasurer is merely the banker for all of them. The Legislature specially provided for his compensation in this other capacity in the section referred to (3509), but that section does not touch the question involved here.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hill, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George C. Lewis, for appellant.",
      "F. B. Brown, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hodges v. Prairie County.\nOpinion delivered July 23, 1906.\nCountV\u2018 TreAsurer \u2014 coiAPENSATidisf.\u2014Uh'def1 Kirby\u2019s'\u2019Digfest,\u2019\" \u00a7 3504, providiiigi\u2019that the! county treasurer1 \u2019shall b\u00e9!allowed1\"as 'fees four per '\u2022\u2018I ''centumi oniithe first Th(pusa.rid Hollars,' and1 \u00a1not \u00a1exceeding two iper' - icentum ,Qn -allrthp, ?ums.,o.ver that.amount,( held that,.the .treasurer\u2019s , s^laryjs^fipced in, ;atnofuit:(]Dy, the .tcjt?! oji die, cqpntjt ^fujifls \u00a1poming into his hands, but in the settlement of the salary each fund cony' \u2022 m\u00bb* r: \u25a0 \u25a0 . ; 5' - u \u00ed t,,dn -,'u : m * \u2022 '\u25a0 \u2019 ; - j . y < c \\ \u00a1 tributes its own proportion and pays m its own kind.\nAppeal from Prairie Circuit Court; George M. Chapline, Judge;\naffirmed.\nGeorge C. Lewis, for appellant.\nThe county treasurer is entitled to charge 4 per cent, where the amount received does not exceed $1,000 in one year, and 2 per cent, on sums exceeding that amount, to be paid ou^ of the respective funds. Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 3508. He is required to keep a separate account with each road district. Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 7332. A fair construction of the statute is that each fund for which the treasurer must keep a separate account should\u2019be treated as a separate and distinct fund, in so far as relates to his commission, and that each should be tolled 4 per cent, on the first $1,000 and 2 per cent, thereafter. ' \u00a1\"\nF. B. Brown, for appellee.\nThe county road tax is one fund, made so by the \u2018Constitution, Amendment 5. Distributing the fund amongst thewalrious road districts into which the county may be divided1 'do'es \u00a1not change its character nor create separate funds. =\u25a0- .\u2018A ' \u25a0 > ..."
  },
  "file_name": "0062-01",
  "first_page_order": 84,
  "last_page_order": 87
}