Jobe v. Caldwell
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; F. Guy Fulk, Judge; x. This court has twice held that the act of 1903 appropriating $1,000,000 for the purpose of completing the State capitel was not a continuing appropriation but was void after the expiration of two years. Art. 5, sec. 28, Const. 1874; 85 Ark. 171; 93 Ark. 513. The law provides what disposition is to be made of appropriations unexpended at -the end of two years.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; F. Guy Fulk, Judge; x. This court has twice held that the act of 1903 appropriating $1,000,000 for the purpose of completing the State capitel was not a continuing appropriation but was void after the expiration of two years. Art. 5, sec. 28, Const. 1874; 85 Ark. 171; 93 Ark. 513. The law provides what disposition is to be made of appropriations unexpended at -the end of two years. See Kirby’s Dig. § § 3416-17-18. No appropriation is valid for a longer period than two years, whether amounts claimed to be due accrued within that period or…
1Dissent
Hart J.,
(dissenting). I believe that the act of 1903 setting
apart and specifically appropriating the money to be derived from a particular source for the purpose of constructing the new State Capitol is available to pay the claim of Caldwell & Drake in this case. The act under which the contract between tire State and Caldwell & Drake was made provides that “in no event shall said Board of State Capitol Commissioners ever pay to said contractors more than 90 per cent, of the amount earned until the building 'is fully completed and accepted, when the 10 per cent, retained shall be paid,” etc.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Benedict v. City of New OrleansSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1905
- Black v. Auditor of StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1870