CASES DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS SNAPP V. COFFMAN. Opinion delivered July 5, 1920. 1. MANDAMUS-DISCRETION OF couRr. --Mandamus is not a writ of right, but is one which the courts in their discretion may or withhold. issue 2. MANDAM US-RIGHT TO REMEDY.-A party to be entitled to a writ s o u f b m j andamus must show that he has a clear legal right to the 3. MAN e D c A t M -m U atter and that he has no other adequate remedy. S-ADEQUACY OF OTHER RE MEDY.-A writ of mandamus to compel the county court to confirm a report of road commissioners allowing certain claims against the district and levying a tax to pay them will not be granted, as the p adequate remedy by appeal from the etitioners had an j udgment of the county court, especially where it does not appear that the claims were ever established before the county court, as provided by law. Appeal from Boone Circuit Court; Judge; affirmed. J. M. Shinn, Shouse & Rowlawd, Pace & Worthington & Crump, for appellants. and Crump The com missioners were appointed in good faith by the county court, and they qualified as a board and acted in good faith, and fraud or collusion is shown, and the • parties are entitled to be paid. Act 338, § 38, Acts 1915, t p h . e 1 e 4 x 3 p 5 e . n T se h s e courts should have made the order to pay i ncurred, and mandamus should issue under the third subd. of § 40 of act 338, Acts 1915, p. 1436. E. G. Mitchell, for appellee. ment T s h o e f c co o m unty court order was void, and all appoint-missioners and assessors were void. Man-damus was the proper remedy. 47 Ark. 80; 113 . Ark. 40;
[145 2 SNAPP v. COFFMAN. 108 Id. 184. See, also, 77 Ark. 101 ; 98 Id. 505; 93 Id. 503 ; 102 Id. 470; 114 Id. 359; 54 Id. 446; 131 Id. 356; 122 Id. 144. The plea of y es jucticata was a good and sufficient de-Rinehart v. Rowland, 139 Ark. 90; 106 Ark. 296. fense. The decision is correct. J. On January 7, 1918, the :county court of WOOD, Boone County created Road Improveme n t District No. 1 of Boone County, Arkansas, and appointed three commissioners, who were duly organized as the board of commissione rs for the district. They entered upon the discharge 'of their duties and continued to act as such commissione r s until September 3, 1918, when the Boone Chancery Court entered a decree dissolving the district. After the board was organized and before the district was dissolved, the board employed counsel to represeht the district, had assessment of benefits made and notices published as the law provided, borrowed money , for the payment of preliminar y expenses. August 23, 1919, the board of commisSioners presented to the county court of Boone County an itemized statement of the expenses incurred before the district was dissolved. The board reported that it had entered upon its record a resolution that a tax of seven-tenth s of one per cent. be collected to pay the claims presented, and prayed the county court to confirm their report and levy a tax sufficient to pay the claim. The county court refused to confirm the report and to render the judgment prayed. Afterward the appellants, as landowne r s in the dissolved district, for themselves and all others interested, instituted this action in the circuit court of Boone County setting up in their complaint the facts as above stated, and prayed for a writ of mandamus to issue to County, commandin g the the county court of B00112 judge of that court to levy the tax prayed and for all proper relief. The respondent, appellee here, judge of the Boone County Court, answered, and also demurred to the petition.
ARK.] SNAPP v. COFFMAN. 3 The cause was heard upon an agreed statement which developed substantially the above facts. Among other things it was agreed: "That the three commissioners had a contract with J. Sam Rowland and G-. Crump as their attorneys, Rowland to :receive $750 and J. Crump $1,000; that they have never been paid; and that their services were well worth the amount claimed. And that the other amounts specified in the exhibit to the petition for mandamus are claims for services rendered a at c t t i h n e g i n a s s t ance of these parties plaintiff, who claim to be com missioners under order of the court, and that the amounts claimed are reasonable." The circuit court denied the petition for the writ of mandamus and entered a judgment dismissing the petition, from which is this appeal. Mandamus is not a writ of right, ,but is one which courts in their discretion may issue or withhold. A party to be entitled to the' right must show that he has a clear legal right to the s no other adequate remedy u . b ject-matter and that he has State v. Board of Directors . 122 Ark. 337, and numerous of School Dist of Ashdown, other cases collated in 3 Crawford's Dig., pp. 339-40. As stated in the above case: "Under this doctrine and :the facts stated, the appellants have mistaken their remedy, and mandamus will not lie." It does not appear from the allegations of the petition, nor does the agreed statement show, that the claims c se o t u f r o t. r t W h h ha e d n ever been established before the county , report of the the county court refused to confirm the com missioners, and to order the levy of taxes to pay same, this was tantamount to a final order or judgment refusing to allow the claims. Appellants could not invoke mandamus against the county court to compel it to order a levy of taxes to pay claims that had never been a djudicated and established by the court, as the law provides. Appellants had a plain and adequate remedy by appeal from the judgment of the county court refusing . to allow their claims and to order the levy of taxes to pay same.
[145 4 The judgment of the circuit court dismissing appel-hints' petition for mandamus is correct, and it is affirmed. SMITH, J., dissenting.
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.