Legal Opinion · Dissent

Harrington v. Gillum

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 13, 1935No. 4-3857Published

1Dissent

Johnson, 0. J.,

(dissenting). I cannot agree with the majority opinion. It holds in fact and effect that there is no difference between necessary and indispensable expenditure for county purposes and those heretofore treated and considered as non-essential, when measured by Amendment No. 10. The sixth subdivision of § 1982 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest, which provides:

“The court shall then proceed to the making of appropriations for the expenses of the county or district for the current year, including as such expense any items for blank printed forms used, by any of the several county officers,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. State v. BuzzardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1842
  2. Polk County v. Mena Star Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
  3. Vahlberg v. KeatonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1889
  4. Nelson v. WalkerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
  5. Stanfield v. FriddleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1932

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API