Kerwin v. Caldwell
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Jefferson Chancery Court; John M. Elliott, Chancellor; 1. The statute means that, of the taxes levied and to be extended on the tax books for county purposes, not over ninety per cent, shall be appropriated for that year; but this does not prevent the levying court from considering other revenue of the county in making appropriations. 34 Ark. 307. 2. The power to purchase the necessary site is incident to the power to construct and maintain a county building. 7…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jefferson Chancery Court; John M. Elliott, Chancellor; 1. The statute means that, of the taxes levied and to be extended on the tax books for county purposes, not over ninety per cent, shall be appropriated for that year; but this does not prevent the levying court from considering other revenue of the county in making appropriations. 34 Ark. 307. 2. The power to purchase the necessary site is incident to the power to construct and maintain a county building. 7 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (New), 933/934, note 1. 1. The statute requires that the total amount of appropriations for all…
1Opinion of the CourtHill, C. J.
This is a taxpayer’s injunction against the county judge and other officers to prevent the erection of a county hospital. The validity of the hospital plan rested upon an. appropriation of the county court appropriating five hundred dollars for the building and maintenance of a hospital. It was alleged that a hospital building to cost $35,000 to $40,000 was about to be erected on a site to cost about $4,500.
The correctness of these statements is challenged, but it is unnecessary to go into these collateral issues. The primary question is the validity of the five hundred dollar appropriation.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Fones Hardware Co. v. ErbSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
- Wiegel v. Pulaski CountySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
- Bowman v. FrithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Allis v. Jefferson CountySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1879