{ "id": 1524433, "name": "State ex rel. Going v. Higginbotham", "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Going v. Higginbotham", "decision_date": "1907-12-09", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "537", "last_page": "540", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "84 Ark. 537" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "52 Wis. 628", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8707159 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wis/52/0628-01" ] }, { "cite": "21 Atl. 546", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "72 Ark. 94", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1505605 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "230" }, { "page": "180" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/72/0094-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Pin. 182", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pin.", "case_ids": [ 1873618 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/pin/1/0182-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 Wall. 93", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "Wall.", "case_ids": [ 3475938 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/70/0093-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 Ark. 148", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1322331 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/55/0148-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 Ark. 436", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8724089 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/69/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 Tex. 41", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Tex.", "case_ids": [ 2124251 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/tex/43/0041-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 La. Ann. 193", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "La. Ann.", "case_ids": [ 8502258 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/la-ann/32/0193-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 N. C. 429", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2083656 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/68/0429-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 Am. Dec. 429", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "Am. Dec.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "66 N. C. 59", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11276564 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/66/0059-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 Am. Dec. 179", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "Am. Dec.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "63 Am. St. Rep. 181", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Am. St. Rep.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "59 Ark. 513", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1327670 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/59/0513-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 Cal. 59", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "case_ids": [ 2311067 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal/58/0059-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 Ga. 614", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga.", "case_ids": [ 378971 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ga/96/0614-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 Barb. 30", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Barb.", "case_ids": [ 4886323 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/barb/7/0030-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Barb. 513", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Barb.", "case_ids": [ 1933774 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/barb/2/0513-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 Wall. 93", "category": "reporters:scotus_early", "reporter": "Wall.", "case_ids": [ 3475938 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/70/0093-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 414, "char_count": 7001, "ocr_confidence": 0.681, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.8207575260377686e-07, "percentile": 0.719184593387491 }, "sha256": "5aa529009663accc9ec4575133fce18727a6deec1601c6e797dc96fa5b012cdf", "simhash": "1:2a63d774e11bfcc9", "word_count": 1207 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:28.525494+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "State ex rel. Going v. Higginbotham." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Hilu, C. J.\nThis is an action brought by the prosecuting attorney under section 7984 of Kirby\u2019s Digest against Higginbotham, a director of the St. Francis Levee District, seeking to have him declared ineligible to hold and keep the office of director or act as a member of said board of directors, on the ground that the said Higginbotham did not reside within the boundary of \u2019the St. Francis Levee District.\nThe complaint, which will be found in the statement of facts, sets forth fully the position of the appellant. In brief, the appellant contends that the directors of the S*t. Francis Levee District are officers within the meaning of section 4, art. 19, of the Constitution, providing that \u201call civil officers for the State at large shall reside within the State, and- all district, county and township officers within their respective districts, counties and townships.\u201d\nThis case primarily involves two questions: First, is a member of the board' of directors of the St. Francis Levee District a public officer ? and, second, if so, is he a county officer ? Before the prosecuting attorney can call for a decision of the question as to whether it is a public office, he must show that he has a right to question the authority of the director. He has no such right unless the director is a county officer, because it is only against county officers that the prosecuting attorney is authorized under section 7984 to proceed.\nLet it be conceded, without being decided, that a director of the St. Francis Levee District is a public officer within-the meaning of said provision of the Constitution; still the question remains paramount, whether the prosecuting attorney can oust him. Therefore, the first duty of the court is to ascertain what is a county officer within the meaning of sec. 7984.\nIn the matter of Whiting, 2 Barb. 513, the court said: \u201cThere are certain officers that are very readily understood to be county officers; such as sheriffs, coroners, surrogates, etc.; for they are appointed or elected for \u25a0 a county, must reside in the county, and can perform their functions only within the county. So there are officers clearly and easily known, for the same reason, as city officers \u2014 such as mayor, recorder, aldermen and the like \u2014 and village officers; such as village trustees \u2014 and town officers; such as town clerk, constable, collector, etc. But there is a large number of officers, both judicial and administrative, whom it is difficult to classify under either of these demoninations.\u201d This definition of a county officer was followed In the matter of Carpenter, 7 Barb. 30.\nThe Supreme Court of Georgia said: \u201cA county officer then is a public officer, whose duties are limited by law to a single county.\u201d Massenburg v. Commissioners, 96 Ga. 614. The Supreme Court of the United States said: \u201cAn officer of the county is one by whom the county performs its usual functions; its functions of government.\u201d Sheboygan Co. v. Parker, 3 Wall. 93.\nIn Knox v. Los Angeles County, 58 Cal. 59, a superintendent of irrigation for a district composed of parts of a county was held not a county officer, but an officer of the district.\nApplying these principles defining a county officer, it is apparent that a member of the board of directors of the St. Francis Levee District is not a county officer, even if it be conceded that he is a public officer. He performs' no functions in or for his county. He performs none of the duties pertaining to the executive- or judicial departments of his county, and he exercises none of the political functions of it. Fie is a member \u00f3f a quasi corporation, serving as an \u201cagency of the State government,\u201d composed of members! \u00a1from various counties and parts of counties constituting a large' district. Carson v. Levee District, 59 Ark. 513. If he is an officer, he is an officer of' that district., and not of the couffiw; and whether this position is a public office within the meaning of the Constitution, or whether it is a mere agency of the landowners composing the district, is a question which the court will determine when a case arises which calls for a decision thereof.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Hilu, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "L. C. Going, Lamb & Caraway and A. B. Shafer, for appellant.", "/. F. Gautney and N. W. Norton, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "State ex rel. Going v. Higginbotham.\nOpinion delivered December 9, 1907.\nCounty officers \u2014 director of mvEE district. \u2014 A director of the St. Francis Levee District is not a \u201ccounty officer\u201d, within Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 7984, providing that a prosecuting attorney may bring an action to prevent the usurpation of a county office.\nAppeal from Craighead Circuit Court; Frank Smith, Judge;\naffirmed.\nThe State of Arkansas, on the relation of D. C. Going, prosecuting attorney of the Second Judicial District, filed a complaint against Walter Higginbotham, alleging that, under the provisions of an act of the General Assembly, which became a law without the approval of the Governor on February 15, 1893, there was created and established the St. Francis Levee District, embracing .all of the counties of Mississippi and Crittenden and parts of the counties of Craighead, Poinsett, Cross, St. Francis, Lee and Phillips; that said act provided for the creation of a board of directors, to be appointed by the Governor, to control and manage the affairs of said district, and provided that said -directors should be appointed, three each from the several counties named; that in March, 1905, the Governor appointed appellee a member of said board of directors from Craig-head County; that appellee is a citizen and resident of Craighead County, ,but does not live'within the bounds of said district, in fact living more than ten miles from the western boundary of said district; that appellee, notwithstanding his disqualification to serve as an officer and director of said district, has undertaken and is now undertaking to usurp said office and to serve as an officer and member of said Board of Directors of St. Francis Levee District, contrary to section four of article nineteen of the Constitution of Arkansas. Prayer that he be ousted from office, etc.\nThe court sustained a demurrer to this complaint. Plaintiff appealed.\nL. C. Going, Lamb & Caraway and A. B. Shafer, for appellant.\n1. A member of' the Board of Directors of St. Francis Levee District is an officer within the meaning of art. 19, \u00a7 4, Const.; 23 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 322; 63 Am. St. Rep. 181; 72 Am. Dec. 179; 66 N. C. 59; 127 Ipd. 365; 58 Am. Dec. 429; 68 N. C. 429; 32 La. Ann. 193; 43 Tex. 41.\n2. The directors are county officers, and the action was properly instituted by the prosecuting attorney. Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 7984; Acts. 1893, p. 120; Id. 26, \u00a7 3; Id. 29,-\u00a7 7; 69 Ark. 436.\n/. F. Gautney and N. W. Norton, for appellee.\n1. The prosecuting attorney is not authorized to bring this action. Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 7985.\n2. A levee director is not only not a county officer, but is not.a civil officer at all, within the meaning of art. 19, \u00a7 4, Const. 55 Ark. 148; 3 Wall. 93; art. 5, \u00a7 13, Const.; 1 Pin. 182; 72 Ark. 94; Id. 230; Id. 180; 21 Atl. 546; 52 Wis. 628." }, "file_name": "0537-01", "first_page_order": 559, "last_page_order": 562 }