ARK.] KLEINER V. PARKER. 671 KLEINER V. PARKER. Opinion delivered June 18, 1928. 1. COUNTIES-SPECIAL SESSION OF QUORUM COURT-EMERGENCY.- Where a county's lease on a building used as a courthouse had expired, and the renthls to be paid for a building used for a courthouse would in a few years amount to enough to build a courthouse, an emergency existed justifying a special session of the quorum court, under Crawford & Moses' Dig., § 1977, for the purpose of considering and voting an appropriation for the construction of a courthouse. 2. COUNTIES-DUAL DISTRICTS-PLACE OF HOLDING COUNTY COURT.- , Under Acts 1913, c. 63, establishing two judicial districts in Ark-ansas County but not providing, for holding county court in the Northern District, the meeting of the quorum court to authorize the construction of a new courthouse for the Northern District was properly held in the Southern District. 3. COUNTIES CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF COURTHOUSE.-A contract to build a courthouse for a specified sum of money, to be
672 KLEINER v. PARKER. [177 paid in annual installments, is not within the prohibition of § 1, art 16, of the Constitution, prohibiting the issuance . by counties of interest-bearing evidences of indebtedness. 4. COUNTIES—CONTRACT TO BUILD COURTHOUSE.—In a taxpayers' . suit to enjoin the county judge and the . courthouse commissioners from proceeding under contract for the construction of a courthouse, the contract having been let pursuant to statute, held that the contract was valid and binding, in the absence of fraud or c011usion between the commissioners and contractors, as against the taxpayers' contention that the building could be eredted . for less money. Appeal . from Arkansas . Chancery , Cottrt,. Northeth District . ; H: R. Lucas, Chancellor ; affirmed. W. A. Leach, for appellant. John L. Ingram and L. P. Biggs, for appellee. . MEHAFFY, J. This suit was brought by appellant, on behalf of himself a.nd other taxpayers of •Arkansas County, against the county judge, county 'clerk, commissioners and contractors, for the purpose of enjoining the defendants from constructing a. courthouse in the Northern District 'of said county, and to enjoin them from proceeding under the orders of the court or the contract, and •to prohibit the clerk from issuing warrants, and the plaintiff asked that the contract be declared void. The levying court appropriated the sum Of $50,000 for the purpose of building a courthouse at Stuttgart, in.the Northern District of said county, payable in warrants $5,000 a year out of the* county revenues until the $50,000 was paid. The . county court appointed the commissioners for the 'purpose of contracting and supervising the construction of the courthouse. The commissioners reported at the October term of the county court, and submitted plans and specifications for the building to , be erected. The report of the commissioners was 'approved, and they were ordered to advertise for bids for the construction of said building, at a cost not to exceed . $50,000, and to entet into a contract for the erection of said building according to the plans and specifications, with persons
ARK.] KLEINER V. PARKER. 673 who would agree to do said work at the lowest, price, not exceeding the amount apprepriated. Commissioners were ordered to take a bond for the performance of the work, as provided by. law. • Ogletree & Barrett bid and offered to do said work for $50,000, payable in county warrants, and this' bid • was 'the lowest bid made, and was accepted by the board, and a contract entered into. Their action was repOrted to' the county court, and the court Approved the contract and ordered • the commissioners to proceed with the work of-construction. The appellant in his complaint alleged that the order§ of the levying court and the county court were :Void, first, - because 'said order was made on 'the 19th day of Febru-ary, 1927, which ' was not a day of the regUlar term of said court, and- no meeting for said day was legally Called ; second, that the Northern District of Arkan§as county had no courthouse, and has never had, and it. is alleged that the county court has no authority to contract for the erection of a new courthouse by warrants payable in the future ;:third; it is alleged that-the annual income or revenue Of the county is insufficient, after meeting the necessary expenditures for the life of the contract, :to meet the paynient of 'the warrants as they baciome due. -It is also alleged that the courthouse could be built; according to plans and specifications, for:$34;000, on$35,000, instead of $50,000. . And the evidence showed that . the courthouse, which 'will; if built according to pla:ns and specifications and paid for in warrants pay-. able over a immber of years, cost $50,000, could be:built for $34,000 or $35,000 cash. Appellant's first 'contention is that the order: of the county court' was void because there was no emergency. The statute provides that, in case of : an- emergency, the county court may : call a meeting of the quorum 'court,- and said quorum court shall have authority to act .upon• any Matter designated in the order of the county court calling for silch meeting. It is:admitted:that the.quorum. court was called under § 1977 . of 'Crawford & Moses '
674 KLEINER V. PARKER. [177 Digest, and that the right to do so was based on the fact that an emergency existed. . Appellant insists that there is no emergency, because the Northern District of Arkansas County had no courthouse, has never had a courthouse, and that it has no authority to contract for the erection of a new -courthouse by warrants payable in the future. The order of the . eourt calling a meeting of the quorum court recites, among other things, that _ the countY's lease on the building in Stuttgart which it has been using as a courthouse in the Northern District, has expired,. and that the county . is forced to procure other quarters in which to hold court and keep. its records in said district. And it further appears that, from year to year, the county is paying for rents on buildings .for courthouse purposes large sums of money, which .will, if continued, in 'a few years amount to enough to build a courthouse. The judgment of the county cOurt recites : "It is the opinion of the court, in view of the fact that the county is the owner of valuable lots, suitable and well located, that an appropriation should be made and -a courthouse be constructed in Stuttgart on said lots as soon as practicable. And the court, being well advised and the premises being fully seen, hereby -finds and- declares that an emergency exists, and a meeting Of the . levying . or quorum-court is hereby called to meet at the courthouse in DeWitt, Arkansas, on the 19th.day of February, 1927, at 10 o'clock A. M. on said day, for - the -purpose of considering and voting an appropriation for tbe &instruction of a courthouse in said district," etc. Unless the • county court can build a courthouse, it would have to make arrangements to rent or lease a. building in which to hold court and keep . the records, and the finding of the county court is • hat the county. would soon pay enough in the way of rent to' build a courthouse. Besides that, the county owns, according to the undisputed proof, valuable lots suitable and well located for a courthouse. It is true that the fact that
ARK. KLEINER. V. PARKER. 675 the county has the lots suitable for a • courthouse and needs a courthouse would not justify the calling of Me quOrum court for the purpose of building a courthouse, unless an emergency existed. And the contention here made is that no emergency existed for calling the quorum court, under § 1977 of Crawford & Moses' Digest; that, even if the county had authority to build a courthouse and the money with which to build it, provision for building same would have to be made at a regular terui of the qUorum court, unless an emergency exists, and that no emergency is shown to exist. Emergency, as used in the statute quoted, simply means . a pressing necessity. And the county court having found that there was an emergency, and no proof being offered tending to disprove or contradict the findings and judgment of the court, a majority of the court is of the opinion that the facts found by the county court constitute an emergency. While the writer does not believe an emergency existed under the facts in this case, it is the opinion of the court that there does exist a pressing necessity or emergency, and that therefore the county court had a right to call a meeting of the quorum court to 'act upon the matters designated in its order. As to what constitutes an emergency, see Colfax County v. Butler County, 83 Neb. 803, 120 N. W. 444; United States v. Sherida/n-Kirlo Contract . Compel/ay, 149 Fed. 809; Mallon v. Board of Water Comm,issioners, 144 Mo. App. 104, 128 S. W. 764. The appellant says that, while he .does not waive the question of the proper meeting place, he believes it was held at the proper place. We think that this is a correct conclusion. Act 63 of the Acts of the General Assembly of 1913 establishes two judicial districts in Arkansas County, and it provides for the holding of circuit, chancery and probate courts and the cOurt of common pleas in each district. But it does not provide for holding any county court at Stuttgart, in the Northern District. • Therefore
676 KLEINER V. PARKER. [177 the only place where county court can 'be held is at DeWitt, the county seat. It is next insisted by the appellant that the order of the county court and the contract are void because the courthouse, under the contract awarded ) will cost $50,000 in county warrants, payable $5,000 a year, when the evidence shows that the same courthouse could be built for $34,000 or $35,000 in cash. And it is insisted that this-is in violation of § 1 of article 16 of the Constitution, which, among other things, prohibits any county from issuing any intereSt-bearing evidences of indebtedness. The undisputed evidence in this case shows that the county advertised for bids according to law and that the contract was let to the lowest bidder, and there is no contention in this case and no evidence of any . fraud or collusion. Thik is not a contract to pay interest, but it is a contract to build a courthouse for a. specified sum of money, to • be paid in annual installments, and this question has been settled by several decisions of this court, and it is no longer open to question whether a contract of this kind is valid." In the case of Campbell v High, 176 Ark. 222, 2 S. W. (2d.) 1101, it was contended that the consideration provided for by the contract was fraudulently fixed at an exorbitant amount to include carrying charges or interest, because of the .fact that .the consideration was to be paid in warrants maturing in the future over a number of years, instead of in cash; that said COD tract calls for the payment of $199,500; that . the cost of said courthouse and jail, if paid for in cash, would not exceed . the sum of $150,000. In passing on that question the court said: "In Stone•v. Mayo, 135 Ark. 130, 204 S. W. 751, it was held that, where a contract to build a county courthouse was let to the lowest bidder, and there was n6 evidence of fraud or collusion between the contractor and the courthouse commissioners, there was a valid and 'binding contract between the parties. In discussing the principles of law governing cases of tbis kind . the court said : 'That case controls this. Here was a straight contract
ARK.] KLEINER V. PARKER. 677 for the construction of the courthouse for $91,806.90. There was no evidence of any collusion among the bidders to perpetrate a fraud on the court to have the contract let at a higher price because of the depreciated value of the county warrants; nor is there any testiniony to warrant the conclusion that . the County Court entered into'collusion with the contractor to giVe him the contract at an increased price because 'the value of the county scrip was less than par. The fact that the bidders made inquiry and ascertained that the value of the" county warrants was less than par, and made their . bid with such knowledge, does not establish that there was collusion between then]. to Stifle the bidding ; and to defraud the court by securing a contract at a higher Pi ; ice on aceount of the deprediated value of the county warrants. There is no allegation that the county • cotrt, or its commissioner, or the bidder, in securing the contract; Were guilty of fraud." Campbell v. High,_176 Ark. 222, 2 S. W. (2d.) 1101. See also Kirk v. High, 169 Ark. 152, 273 S. W. 38-9; Ivy v. Edwards, 174 Ark. 1167, 298 S. W. 1006; Lake v. Tatum, 175 Ark. 90, 1 S. W. (2d:) 55; Norman v Blair, ante p. 649. : We think the cases' . cited .aboVe settle all the questions raised in this case, and 'a reView of the anthorities here Would serVe . no useful pUrpose The evidence shows that the annual inc6me or revel-Me is Sufficient tO meet the iiayments after paying the necessary expenses Of the county. The authorities On: all the questions 'involved in this case May be feund reVieWed in the case's above cited. .T . Under the , anthority of the recent decisions of this court, the decree of the chancellor is 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.