Rowden v. Fulton County
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Fulton Circuit Court;' J. B. Baker, Judge; Claim should have been allowed. Acts 1911, No. 296. 66 Ark. 30 is the law of this case and settles it. 66 Ark. 30 is not applicable. Here tbe act is different. It requires a settlement once a year at tbe July term. The appellant’s excess of salary was properly covered into tbe treasury.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Fulton Circuit Court;' J. B. Baker, Judge; Claim should have been allowed. Acts 1911, No. 296. 66 Ark. 30 is the law of this case and settles it. 66 Ark. 30 is not applicable. Here tbe act is different. It requires a settlement once a year at tbe July term. The appellant’s excess of salary was properly covered into tbe treasury. Each year is separate to itself and an excess of salary paid at the end of one year can not be reclaimed to cover a deficit in salary in another year. Acts 1911, p. 808. STATEMENT OF FACTS. The appellant was elected sheriff and collector of Fulton County,…
1Opinion of the Court
WOOD, J.,
(after stating the facts). Act 296 of the Acts of 1911 is an act entitled, “An act to amend Act No. 70 of the Acts of Arkansas for the year 1909, fixing the fees and salaries of the clerk, sheriff and assessor of Fulton County, Arkansas.” The sections of the act affecting sheriffs are as follows:
“Sec. 2. The fees and salary of sheriff and ex-officio collector of said county shall not exceed the sum of twenty-two hundred ($2,200) dollars per annum, and out of this sum he shall pay for all deputies and assistants; provided, he may be allowed, in addition to the above salary,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Independence County v. YoungSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1898
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hardin v. Fort Smith DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920