ARK. STATE, USE JACKSON COUNTY, V. MURPHY. 439
STATE, USE JACKSON COUNTY, V. MURPHY. 4-4220 Opinion delivered March 16, 1936.. CouNTIEs.—County treasurer, in paying warrants void because issued in excess of revenue for 'year violates his official duty for which he and his surety are liable; and an action may be maintained' against him in the circuit court to recover the amount although the complaint contains , no allegation that in his settlement with the county court it was found that he was indebted to the county. Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; S. M. Bone; Judge; reverSed. • ' Roy Richardson, Howard 'lasting and S. L. Richard-son, for appellant: _ John C. Ashley and .011Aee HarriS'On, Buzbee 4 Wright, for Appellees. HUMPHREYS, J. Appellant brought two suits in- the circnit COurt of Jackson County against appellees, one of thein to recoVer $499.19 and one for $1.50, alleging 01 the basis of the suits that the treasurer of Said conntY cashed warrants out 'of the general revenue . fund . of the countT for the amounts which' Warrants Were , void . te- cause issued in excess Of the .revehueS for the yearS''to Which ,they were chargeable, in violation of Amendment NO. 10 of the' Constitution of 1874, to the injury •of-thV county, , and that the wrongful act of the treastrer in caShing the warrants was a breach of his bond.. 'A de-: mtirrer waS filed to each . of the complaints on the greund that . the cirduit cOurt was witheut jurisdiction to hear,' try and deterinine the_ issues raised; and that if it had' jfirisdietion, the complaint did not state fadts -Suifir didnr to constitnte 'a ea-Ilse of action. For the purposes of' trial, the ca,Ses we're consolidated. Upen a hearing, the court suStained the 'demurrer to each complaint,. and appol-lants, electing to stand upon their complaints and ` refus-: ing te plead fnrther, the complaints were dismissed, from which judgment of dismissal, an appeal has been duly prosecuted to this Court. .The condition contained in the' treasurer's 'bald, made • part of the complaint, are for the true and faithful performance of his chilies aS 'county treasurer, and'
440 STATE, USE JACKSON COUNTY, V. MURPHY. 1192 for an accounting and payment over of all money coming into his hands as treasurer. . . These demurrers were suStained by the trial court to the complaint,, and the complaints were dismissed without . assigning the , reason for doing so. : It is arkued that the court was correct becanse the complaints.contained no allegation that, in the settlement With the treasurer, it . was • found and adjudged.. by the county court that *he was indebted to the connty in any surn 'which he had not paid. • his was not necesarY as a condition precedent to bring a suit against him and his bondsmen for paying void warrants. The payment .of void Warrants by the treasurer was clearly a violation of his official duties, and the bond provided he would faithfully . perform his duties. The ease of lialey-Thomp-son Special Consolidated School District , y. Splawn, 172 Ark., 797,. 290 S. W.. 957, is authority for 'bringing suits in. the circuit cOurt for wrongful acts• of a . county treasurer 'for , cashing and paying void ,warrants , whether .the. officer's accounts have been passed_ upon bythe connty court or not. His wrongful acts in the . performance of dnties have nothing to . do with, his . accounts or settlements. It was said by ;this cOu'rt in the case of Seliool District v. Splawn,snpra, that : " Certainly there , can :be no . reason to have the 'county .conrt pass on whether .or not ,a. treasurer had wrongfully paid: a 'warrant. As to, whether , .the - treasurer did- or did not wrongfully :pay these warrants, or any of them, is a question of. fact, and may, be determined in a trial in .the cireuit . court without any regard to what . the officer :may have done in the county court. . We think there is no reason. why the county court should act in a suit like this before , suit. is begun in, the circnit court, and that such action by the county conrt is not necessary to give the .circuit court jurisdiction." • It is also argued that Amendment No. 10 to the •Constitution. of 1874 has. no application to the payment • of warrants ordered and issued against the.generalrevenue, fund in excess of the revenues for the years to which they were chargeable.. The demurrers admitted in these cases that. the two warrants iii question .weye ,yoid,
ARK. 441 caue allowed and issued contrary to the athendment, and it necessarily follows that the treasurer was without .•apthoiity to paY such 'warrants. • The amendment 'Would mean . nothing, and be • of no ferce and effeet if warrAnis 'alloWed and issued in violation a it thight be paid by the treastter with impUnity. It i§ true' no penalty is•im-•pused by . the amendment upon the treasurer for paying them 'such 'as 'a . fin se or imprisonment; 'but it does:mot exempt him from liability for doing . so'. The complaints alleged a . go . od cause . Ofaction.• , 'The' judgments are reversed, and.the . causes are', re- ma „ n ded • with direetions to overrUle the ' ..demurrefs, , and to PrOpeed witih the trial Upon their . merits.
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.