ARK.] PRESSLEY V. DEAL, .COUNTY JUDGE. 217 PRESSLEY V. DEAL, COUNTY JUDGE. 4-4144
Opinion delivered February 1.0, 1936. COUNTIES—EXPENSES OF cOUNTY JUDGE.—The quorum court of a county is without authority to appropriate money to pay expenses of the county judge, and the act of the county court in allowing an expense claim in the judge's favor is void. Appeal from Cleburne Circuit Court ; Jack Ho4, Judge; reversed.
218 PRESSLEY V. DEAL, COUNTY JUDGE. [192 W. L. Deal, county judge of Cleburne County, filed a claim for expenses, in which F. W. Pressley, as a citizen and taxpayer, intervened. Intervener has appealed from an adverse judgment. M..B. Vinson, for dppellaiit. J ... . L. Bittle, for apPellee. McIliNE y ; J. Appellee iS the . county, judge of Ole-burne County, and . on the firSt Monday in . January; 1934, the quorum cotrt of said county appropriated . .out . of the comity general funds the suin of . $300'to pay the expenses of the connty judge for the ensuing year. On March 5, 1934, appellee filed his elaini for expenses in the sum of $107 for the months of November and December, 1933, and January and February,. 1934. He presented the claim to himself as . county judge, allowed it and ordered it paid out of said' appropriation. On* April 14, 1934, appellant, as a citizen and taxpayer, intervened and appealed from said order of allowance to the circuit court. On a.trial- in the circuit court, the claim was approved and 'judgment ! rendered in favor- of ',appellee. Appellant in . apt time filed a• motion for a new trial which was sustained, and the judgment set. aside. • The case was again heard by themirCuit-Court, testimony pre-. suited, and the case taken under .advisethent until' the September, 1935, term of court. In the meantime, on December 31,1934; appellee . filed another .claind against the county, in the sum of $110.62, which. was allowed and ordered paid out of the same appropriation, and appellant again appealed from the latter order. The two appeals were consolidated for trial, and the court again found for appellee, and rendered judgment in his favor on both claims on the ground that' the appropriation was not made to enlarge the' county judge's salary; "that the appropriation for expenses, was not made to defray the expenSes of the County judge as sUch, but, because of the excessive amount of work necessary to be done outside the official duties of the county judge, and necessary to procure work and work projects for the un-employables under the several relief agencies then operating in Cleburne County:" This appeal challenges the validity of such judgment.
ARK.] PRESSLEY ;/).. DEAL, .COUNTY JUDGE. 219 . The electors of Cleburne County adopted an initiated salary act atThe general. election held November 8, 1932. SeCtion.1, of said act, fixes the salary of . the 'county 'and. probate judge at $1,000 per annuin to be Paid out of the county: general fund, and $200 per 'annum .as road commissioner of the county, to b . e paid 'nut. of the unappor-: tioned road funds of the county.. This act does not provide for the payment of • any expenses of the .county. judge. . • , . Section 1892 of Crawford &: Moses' Digest, provides . what aPPropriations shall' be made by the :qnorum court. It proVides, in' SUbdivision No 7,. that said. *court make an appropriation, " fo defray Sneh . .other expenses of the connty governMent as hie allowed by the laws of this State." Under this subdivision, it was held by this court in Nevada County v. News Printing Company, 139 Ark. 502, 206 S. W. 899, th . at it was the duty of the levying court to levk and appropriate snms sufficient to pay printing claims allowed against the county under the Publicity Act of 1915, page 1511. In other words, the quorum cofirt has' the poWer to make an appropriation to defray such other county government expenses . as. a re 'allowed by the : laws .•of. this State, in addition to those specifically 'mentfoned under . : the six preceding' subdivisions. It iS ontended'br appellee . that subdivision . No. 7, above quoted, gives the quoruni coUrt authority to make the appropriation here : involved. ' It will . he noticed that the other expenses mentioned for which: an appropriation May .be . made nnist : .be' such "as are allOwed by the laws of this . State." We: have been unable to .find 3 in the laws of this State, and none has been called tO opr-attention by counsel, 'where : anthority is given' 'fdr the quorum : eourt -Le appropriate money to pay. expenses. of the county: judge.: We do hot think that v. Edsterlin4 Cook, .175 Ark. 574, 299 S. W. 1009, is anthority for the. contention, here made. • On .the contrary, . we . are ,of. the' opinion that: the . recent . case 'of .Johnson ,Donham, 191 Ark.•192, 84 : S. W. (2d) 374, announces the principle that controls this ease.. It was there held that there was no. authority in the law fOr the comity court to . purchase a la* library for the use of . the prosecuting attorney.
2°0 [192 We have not reviewed the evidence on which the judgment of the circuit court was based. We think the good faith of the quorum court in making the appropriation, and the good faith of• the county judge in making . the allowances to himself are unquestioned. But good faith does not give authority to do an act not authorized by law. Since, as we have shown, there is no authority in law for the quorum court to make the appropriation, the act of the county court in allowing the claim in his favor is illegal and void. The judgment of the circuit court is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to disallow the claims, and to . cause his order of disallowance to be certified to the county court for its action thereon.
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.