State v. Aven
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from St. Francis Chancery Court. Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor. The prosecuting attorney should hjve attended to the matter, and he is allowed therefor $5. Sand. & H. Dig., § 3304. The evidence shows that Norton & Prewett were the regularly employed attorneys for the school districts. 65 Ark. 159; S. C. 49 S. W. 189. The districts had power to employ them. 39 Ark. 50; 63 Ark. 433; S. C. 39 S. W. 264.
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
The state of Arkansas, for the use of school districts Nos. '9 and 16 of the county of St. Francis, instituted an action against John B. Wilson and others to recover a sum of money for which Wilson was indebted to them. Norton & Prewett, a firm of lawyers, were employed to prosecute the action. They did so, and recovered a judgment and collected it. The money collected was paid to John W. Aven, the treasurer of St. Francis county, less the amount retained by-Norton-& Prewett for services •rendered. Aven, as county treasurer, thereafter filed his settlement in the St. Francis county court, and…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Board of Education of Lonoke Cty. v. Lonoke Cty.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
- Arrington v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1917
- Blount v. BakerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
- Fleischmann v. GravesNew York Supreme Court · 1922
- Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports2011