192 JOHNSON 'V. DONHAM. [191. JOHNSON V. .DONHAM. 4-3986
Opinion delivered July 1, 1935. I. COUNTIES— LCOUNTY PURPOSES.—Const. art. 7, § 28; authorizing disbursement of money for county purposes, contemplates those purposes which promote the- welfare of the county as a whole and RS citizens. . 2. COUNTIES-7 AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE PROPERTY.—Crawford & Moses' Dig., § 2279, authorizing the county court to purchase real and personal property s for the use of the .county, Authorizes the purchase of such property only as is necessary for .the conduct of the affairs Of the county-government. 3. CpuNnEs—cOuNTv PURPOSES.—An appropriation of county funds for purchase of a. law library for the prosecuting •attorney's office held unauthorized as a disbursement for county purposes or within tfie contingent expense of the prosecuting attorney's office. Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Frank Dodge,'Chancellor; reversed. Price Shofner, for appellant. Fred A. Donham, for appellee. BUTLER, J. On the first Monday in January, 1935, tbe quorum court of. Pulaski County made the following appropriations for .the office -of prosecuting attorney: "Salaries $17„500.00 "Contingent expenses 2,500700 : . "Library 2,500.00." The prosecuting AttornOy's office is situated . in the 'Pulaski County courthouse. The purpose of the appropriation for the library of .$2,500 was to enable- the purchase of a law Jibrary to be located in-the office of the prosecuting attorney, and this suit is to- enjoin its -purchase. The court below denied . .the -prayer of the complaint, and the case is here on appeal: • There are :several questions raised by the appellant, but there is no occasion to notice any except the first, namely, has the quorum court the authority to appropriate county fundS to purchase a law library for the use of the prosecuting. attorney's office? The appellee contends that this authority is found in § 28, art. 7 of- the Constitution, and § 2279 of Crawford & Moses' Digest. We are cited to the cases of State use of Prairie County
ARK.] JOHNSON v. DONHAM. 193 v.,Leathem & Co., 170 Ark. 1004,. 282, S. W. , 367, and.Craig v. Grady, 166 Ark. 344, 266 S. W. 267, as authority:for the.position assumed. Section 28,. art. 7 of the 'Constitution, authorizes the 'disbursement of money for county purposes; and in every other case that may be . necesSary to the 'internal improvement and local concern of respective counties: , T . h . at part of § 2279 of . Crawford & Moses' Digest ("noted by . appellee as sustaining his contention .. is as fol-lews : "The county court Of 'each county shall haVe the following 'powers and jurisdictions : * *:' to have . ihe cOntrol and managethent of all the property, real and personal; tor the use of„the . conntyi to have full . poWer and authority to purchase or reCeive by donation.. anY Property, .real Or perSOnal., for the use Of the conrity; and to eatiSe to be erected , all buildings: and all rePairs nec-eSS'ary for. the Use of the County ,; to sell arid cause to be conVeyed any real eState or personal Property belonging to the countY, and.appropriate 'the proceeds of Such sale for ihe nse of : the county; to disbrirSe 'money . for county pnrpoSes, and in all ether ' cases that may be necessary to the internal improVement and Mea . l conc • erns , . of t • he respective counties." • We. are referred to no- particular clause in, the ° constitutional provision, or the: section.of the Digest;:quoted supra, which is. thought .to uphold the contention. here made. We discover no• express provision 'giving to .the court the power to . expend . money for the purpose of purchasing a. laW . .library, -nor can we find any from:which that power might •be implieth The "-county purposes" for which the county 's ! money may be:disbursed are those purposes which promote the- welfare Of the county; as a whole and of its . citizens such as, the erection of county. buildings, bridges ever corinty roads', and such other purL. poses as .would promote :the general health- and •welfare of its citizens—and cOuld hardly be. extended .to 'include the purchase of a law library for the use . of a.State :or district officer as is the prosecuting . attorney.. This.• is true, although tbe title' to the boa§ purchased might be in the:county.-. , . _ -
194 JOHNSON V. DONHAM. [191 Section 2279 authorizes the county court to purchase real or personal property for the use of the county. The intention of the act is not to authorize tbe purchase of any and all kinds of personal property, but only such as is necessary for. the conduet of the affairs of county government, as court records, furnishing for county buildings, food and clothing for county prisoners and the like. The effect of the decisions cited supra is, that where an express power is given the implied power arises to do those things necessary to carry .the express power into effect. The point in those cases was that, as the county court was the general fiscal agent of the county with supervisory power Over the collection and preservation of county funds, it has the implied power to employ an expert accountant to examine the accounts of its officers clothed with the authority to collect and disburse revenues. We perceive no principle announced in those cases applicable to the instant case. Our conclusion therefore is that the provisions of the Constitution and statute relied upon confer no authority, either express or implied, for an expenditure of the funds ofthe county such as iS sought to be prevented in this case.. Appellee cites, as ample authority for the contemplated purchase, § 4 of act 74 of , the Acts of 1933, which is as follows : "The prosecuting attorney of each of said districts shall be allowed the sum of eight thousand five hundred ($8,500) dollars per .annum for the contingent expenses of his office, including telephone, telegraph, postage, printing, office supplies and equipment, office rent, stationery, traveling exiienses, special services, operation of cars, and such other expenses . •which, within the discretion of the prosecuting attorney, are a proper expense of the office ; and, also include necessary expenses in connection with the proper investigation of trials before the grand jury or any court of the county." If we give effect to the act cited, it affords no authority for the contention of the appellee. That act provides for $8,500 to be allowed the prosecuting attorney as- "contingent expenses of his office." As "contingent expenses," it names expenses for certain specific items and
ARK.] 195 coneludes with:- "such other expenses, which, within the discretion of the prosecuting attorney, are a proper expense Of the office." If welreat the phrase, "suCh other - expenses" as relating to the expense g foi the specific items nanied, then the expenses allowable 1Vould be only for items of the same generic clas's as the items spej, cifically named. A law library cannot, by any legitimate construction, be deemed to .come within the class of any of the specified .items. This -phrase "such other expenses" must therefore relate to the ordinary "contingent" expense of the office—that is, such expenses as might ordinarily be expected to arie in the conduct of the office, but which 'might 'not occur. It must be . con:- ceded that; the discretion given the prosecuting attorney in the 'expenditure of the $8,500 i§ unusually broad, but we do not think it can be legitimately stretched snas to giVe authority for the purchase contemplated. . Front the • views expressed it follows that the decree of the trial cOurt must be reversed, and the cause is remanded with direetions to grant the prayer of appel--. . lant's complaint.
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.