26 Ark.] OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 37 TERm, 1870.] Granger and wife v. Pulaski County. GRANGER AND WIFE V. PULASKI COUNTY. QUASI CORPOB.ATIONS—Powers of.—Counties may be termed quasi corporations, the assumption of their corporate powers conferred and duties imposed, are wholly involuntary, they possess no power, incur no obligations, except specially conferri ed by statute. LiAnurr y .—A private action will not lie, at the suit of a party injured, against a quasi corporation, resulting from non-performance by its officers of a corporate duty, unless given by statute. Appeal from Pulaski County.
38 CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT [26 Ark. Granger and wife v. Pulaski County. [DEcEmaKa HON. TOHN WHYTOCK, Circuit Judge. Rice & Benjamin, Gallagher & Newton and T. D. W. Yonley, for appellant. Counties are liable as bodies politic, as also municipal. Gould's Dig. 287, Sec. 1, Chap. 41; corporations are liable at common law for trusts and acts of their agents. Hawkins v. Duchess of Orange; Steamboat Co., 3 Wend. 453; McCready v. Guard. of the Poor, S. & R. 94; Lyman v. White River Bridge Co., 3 Ark. 355, 3. Hill 573, per Harper, C. J.; Goodloe & Smith v. City of Cia., 4 Ham 500 and 514; Cincinnati v. Ham-ilton Co., TVright 603; Chestnut Hill Turnpike Co.v. Butler, 4. S. & B. 16; Kansas v. Schuylkill Bank, 4 Was. C. C. 106; Riddle v. Proprietors of docks and canals, 7 Mass. 187; Gerch v. Fulton Bcunk, 7 Can. 485. The demurrer admitted the authority af the corporation. _Lyman v. White River Bridge Co., 2 Ark. 255, 257. A county is liable to repair a bridge unless they can charge a particular person. 1. Salk R. p. 359 (s. 7.) 1. Vent 51; 6. Mad. 150, 191, 255, 307. Holt 339. To render corporation liable for negligence, law must impo&e duty upon it. Hawkins v. Plattsburg, 15 Bart. 427; also, Western College v. Cleveland, 12; Ohio n. s, 375; Perkins v. Newell, 26 Ill. 220; Cates v. Davenport, 9; Iowa 227, (Withwell) 227. Municipal are equally liable as civil. See R. v. Bingham & Glancetshen R. Co., 32, 223; R. v. Great N. R. Co., 315; 3 B. & Ala., 290; B. v. Scaarbeck, 6 A. & E. 513; 2 Black, 418; 1 Black, 39; 17 Haw. 161. That all the requisites exist to create the liability in regard -.Pulaski county, sec, 6 .cc. chap. p. 2Sfr7, Dig.; Raads and Highways lb. p. 962; Public RooAs declared Highway, sects. 1 ard 2; lb. p. 971, sect. 76, 77; lb. 966, sec. 29; Acts of Legislature 1860, p. 359; Ib. 371; Acts of 18.66, Boas & Highways; Acts of 1854, p. 176. Warwick, Watkins & Rose, for appellee. A county cannot be sued for damages occasioned by a de-
26 Ark.] OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. 39 TEEM, 1870.] Granger and wife v. Pulaski County. fective bridge or highway; Hedges v. County, 1. Gilman, Ill. 567; Russell v. Men of Devon, 2 Durnf. & East. 667; Buddle v. Proprietors &c., 7 Mass. 186; Miney v. Police, 12 La. An. 858; Schuyler Co. v. Mercer Co., 4 Gilman, 20; Ward v. County of Hartford, 12 Conn. 404; Commissioners v. Meghels, 7 Ohio State R. 109; Huffman v. San Joaquin, 12 Cal., 426; Haruey v. Town of Newfane, 8 Barb., Sup. Ct. R. 645; Makinnon v. Pon-son, 18 Eng. L. cf Eq., 509. BOWEN, J. Daniel B. Granger and Alice C., his wife, brought an action, in the Pulaski circuit court, against the county of Pulaski, seeking to recover damages for injuries received by said Alice C. Granger, by being thrown from a bridge on a public highway in said county, in consequence of the insecure condition of the bridge, etc. The appellee demurred to the declaration, which was sustained, from which ruling and judgment of the circuit court Granger appealed. The principal point raised by the demurrer is, whether any action lies against a county in this State for damages resulting from a defect in a public highway. Counties are a political division of the State Government, organized as part and parcel of its machinery, like thwnships, school districts and kindred sub-divisions. They do not derive any of the corporate powers they possess by a special charter. Their functions are wholly of a public nature, and their creation a matter of public convenience and governmental necessity, and in order that they may the better subserve the public interest, certnin corporate powers are conferred on them. Whether they will assume their corporate powers and perform the duties and obligations imposed, axe questions over which they have no choice, but their assumption is wholly involuntary. They have been termed quasi corporations, possessing no
CASES DT THE SUPREM F COURT [20 Ark. 40 Granger and wife v. Pulaski County. [DECEMBER power, and incurring no obligations save those especially conferred or imposed by statute. Cheif Justice PARKER, of Massachusetts, in speaking of these involuntary corporations, said: "That they are not bodies politic and corporate, with the rneral powers of corporations, must be admitted ;" and the reasoning advanced to show their defect of power is conclusive: "They may be considered, under our institutions, as quasi corporations, with limited powers, co-extensive with the duties imposed upon them by statute or usage, but restrained from the general use of authority, which belongs to these metaphysical persons." It is well settled that, at common law, these quasi corporations are not liable to a private action at the suit of a party injured, resulting from the non-performance by its officers of a corporate duty, and no such action lies unless given by statute. This doctrine has been repeatedly asserted and applied by the courts of this State, where , actions have been brought against counties and townships for injuries received in consequence of defects in the public highway. We know ef but one State in which a contfary opinion is held. See Mower v. Leicester, 9 Mass., 250 ; Bartlett v. Crozier, 17 Johnson, 439 ; King v. Police Jury, 12 La., 858; Hedges v. County, 1 Gillam, 567 ; Moray v. Newfaine, 8 Barb., 645; 21 Cal., 426; 2 N. H., 393; 27 Barb., 543 ; 4 Mich., 557 ; 11 N. Y., 392. In the ease of Humphries v. Armstrong County, 56 Pa. St. R., 204, cited by appellants, the question here raised does not seem to have been passed upon. It may be observed, however, that the statute of that State makes it an imperative duty for the county to repair all bridges in the county. Numerous decisions have been cited by appellant's counsel, wherein cities and municipal corporations have been held liable. It must be borne in mind, however, that muncipali-ties are usually created by express charter, in which the State parts with a portion of her sovereignty, and grants them large powers of self-government; larger powers of acquiring and controlling corporate property are conferred than on counties ;
26 Ark.] OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. 41 TERM, 1870.] special and peculiar privileges are given them as to streets and public ways, and special authority given for the use of public ways for the convenience of the citizen, unknown elsewhere. The benefits conferred raise an implied promise of the corporation to fulfill every coriorate duty and obligation. The a.ssump-tion of corporate powers by a municipality is voluntary. In this respect they assimilate a private corporation; and, having accepted a valuable franchise on the condition of the performance of certain public duties, are held to contraet by the acceptance, for the performance of those duties. There is no statute in this State rendering counties liable in actions sounding in tort, and the circuit court did not, therefore, err in overruling appellant's demurrer. Judgment affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.