Farmer v. Franklin County
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, C. J.,
(after stating the facts). It is the settled rule in tins State that county courts act judicially in the allowance or disallowance of claims against the county. State use of Izard County v. Hinkle, 37 Ark. 532; Hutson v. State use of Hempstead County, 171 Ark. 1132, 287 S. W. 398; and Harriman National Bank v. Pope County, 173 Ark. 243, 292 S. W. 379.
The contract made with Farmer for road construction was one contract, and no claim was made by him for any amount due him until after he had performed the contract. He then presented his claim to the county court, which was allowed in…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State ex rel. Izard County v. HinkleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1881
- Hutson v. State Ex Rel. Hempstead CountySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
- Harriman National Bank v. Pope CountySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
- Lilly v. BarronSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
- Marion County v. EstesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
3Cited by6 opinions
- Mears v. HallSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1978
- Ark. Association of County Judges v. GreenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1960
- Ark. Association of County Judges v. GreenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1960
- Fulton County v. BarhamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
- Mears v. HallSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1978
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.