Pierce v. Edington
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Desha Circuit Court. Hou. J. A. Williams, Circuit Judge. 1. Maudamus will lie against a ministerial officer to compel him to perform an act enjoined by law. Gantt’s Dig. sec. 4150. It was the duty of the county treasurer to pay the warrants out of any funds iu his hands for that purpose.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Desha Circuit Court. Hou. J. A. Williams, Circuit Judge. 1. Maudamus will lie against a ministerial officer to compel him to perform an act enjoined by law. Gantt’s Dig. sec. 4150. It was the duty of the county treasurer to pay the warrants out of any funds iu his hands for that purpose. Acts 1875, sec. 68, p. 77. The warrants conform to sec. 67 of said act in every particular. 2. Mills, Dixon, and Goza were at least directors de facto, and as such their acts are binding, because they concern a third person who is assignee for valuable consideration. Miller v. Calloway, 32 Ark.,…
1Opinion of the Court
Eakin, J. 3d. That the drawers were not, in fact, school directors-of the said district, because at the annual school meeting-thereof, on the third Saturday in August, 1875, John H. McDowell had been duly elected trustee for the ensuing year,, and had qualified and acted. That there had been no school meeting since, but the county court, at its April term,, 1876, misapprehending the law of December 7th, 1875, and supposing the trustee’s office to be vacant, appointed Jam?» Goza, together with said Mills and Dixon, as directors, all three of -whom accepted. That they have no other authority.…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Pahlka v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Brown v. AndersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1946
- Brumley v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Arkansas Bond Company v. HartonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1935
- Forrest City Grocer Co. v. CatlinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.