Jacks & Co. v. Turner
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Phillips Circuit Court. Hon. J. N. Cypert, Circuit Judge. Sec. 1089 of Gantt’s Digest not repealed by Art. XVI, Const, of 1874. Repeals by implication not favored. The State v. Watts, 23 Ark., 309; Sedgwick on State and, Const. Law, 121,126 An allowance by the county court is a judgment, and by general law bears interest. Rule not different against municipal corporations.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Phillips Circuit Court. Hon. J. N. Cypert, Circuit Judge. Sec. 1089 of Gantt’s Digest not repealed by Art. XVI, Const, of 1874. Repeals by implication not favored. The State v. Watts, 23 Ark., 309; Sedgwick on State and, Const. Law, 121,126 An allowance by the county court is a judgment, and by general law bears interest. Rule not different against municipal corporations. Langdon v. Castleton, 30 Vt., 285; Robbins v. Co. Ct., 3 Mo., 57. Coupons of bonds bear interest after maturity. Aurora City v. West, 7 Wall., 105 ; Cromwell v. Sue. Co., 96 U. S., 51; Rogers v. Lee Co., 1 Dill.…
1Opinion of the Court
statement.
Eakin, J.
On the fifteenth of April, 1879, appellants paid Turner, as collector of taxes, a lot of county warrants properly drawn, amounting to over six thousand dollars. They had been presented to the county treasurer on the thirtieth day of December, 1878, and by him then indorsed as “ not paid for want of funds.” Upon paying them to the collector, appellants claimed interest, at 6 per cent., which, being refused, they paid them, at face value, under protest, to avoid a penalty, and brought this suit for the interest, averring, in substance, the facts above stated.
The court…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Quinn v. ReedSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917