Parsel v. Barnes & Bro.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court. Hon. Liberty Bartlett, Circuit Judge. Sections 58, 59 and 60, Gould’s Digest, give county courts power to order in all scrip; and, under sec. 60, the scrip was annulled, if not presented. The appellees having failed to present the same, lost their claim against the county. Parties to the contract are presumed to have contracted according to existing laws.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court. Hon. Liberty Bartlett, Circuit Judge. Sections 58, 59 and 60, Gould’s Digest, give county courts power to order in all scrip; and, under sec. 60, the scrip was annulled, if not presented. The appellees having failed to present the same, lost their claim against the county. Parties to the contract are presumed to have contracted according to existing laws. Newton v. Peay, 21 Ark., 86. The statute above referred to was in the statute book long before said scrip was issued; said parties must' be presumed to have taken it subject to its being called in at any…
1Opinion of the Court
Giikgo, 3.
This suit ivas instituted by the appellees petitioning the Pulaski circuit court for a mandamus against the- appellant, as treasurer of said county', and to compel him to accept and pay off certain claims held by the appellees, which they alleged were warrants, legally issued by said county, and for the payment of which the said Parsel, as such treasurer, was liable.
Bo far as appears by the record, the claims held by the appellees were in the usual form of county warrants, duly issued, and were signed by the clerk of the county, and amounted in the aggregate to $975-^/^-, which were…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Williams v. Peyton's LesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Lee v. MunroeSupreme Court of the United States · 1813
- Mayor of Balto. v. ReynoldsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1863
- Mayor of Baltimore v. EschbachCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1862
3Cited by12 opinions
- Shirk v. Pulaski CountyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · 1877
- McConnell v. Arkansas Brick & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1902
- First National Bank v. WhisenhuntSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Rolfe v. Spybuck Drainage District No. 1Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Duke v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1892
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.