Hempstead v. Auditor
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from the Cvretidt Cowrt of JPulasM Qowvty. lion. .William If. Feild, Circuit Judge. 1. That tbe appellant, having been elected Swamp Land Agent, given bond, taken the oath of office, and received a commission, was entitled to compensation from the date of his commission. 2. That the 6th section of the swamp land act does not deprive him of compensation: but merely increases his powers on reciv-ing “books &c.,” as therein provided. 3. That there is no such anomaly in…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Cvretidt Cowrt of JPulasM Qowvty. lion. .William If. Feild, Circuit Judge. 1. That tbe appellant, having been elected Swamp Land Agent, given bond, taken the oath of office, and received a commission, was entitled to compensation from the date of his commission. 2. That the 6th section of the swamp land act does not deprive him of compensation: but merely increases his powers on reciv-ing “books &c.,” as therein provided. 3. That there is no such anomaly in our law as an officer without any right to compensation. The relator in this case was not entitled to a mandamus. Ilis…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice English
On the 12th of December, 1853, Bernard E. Hempstead filed a petition for mandamus against the Auditor, in the Pulaski Circuit Court, alleging in substance, that he was elected, by the General Assembly, at the sesison of 1852-53, Land Agent, for the "Washington District, under the provisions of the act of the 12th January, 1853,amendatory of existing laws regulating the landed •i/nierest of this State.” That, on the 14th of March, 1853, after his election, he took the official oath, and executed the bond, prescribed by the 5th section of said act; and, on the 17th of the same month, was duly…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Webb v. KelseySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1899
- Hempstead v. Underhill's HeirsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1859
- Deloach v. BrownfieldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1860