TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

American Disinfecting Co., Inc. v. Franklin Cty.

American Disinfecting Company, Inc. v. Franklin County.

Am. Disinfecting Co. v. Franklin Cty., 27 S.W.2d 95 (Ark. 1930)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 28, 1930
Judges
Hart
Citations
27 S.W.2d 95181 Ark. 6591930 Ark. LEXIS 301

Opinion of the Court — Hart

Hart, C. J., (after stating the facts). Section 1976 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest reads as follows:

“No county court or agent of any county shall hereafter make any contract on behalf of the county unless an appropriation has been previously made therefor, and is wholly or in part unexpended, and in no event shall any county court or agent of any county make any contract in excess of any such appropriation made, and the amount of such contract or contracts shall be limited to the amount of the appropriation made by the quorum court. ’ ’

This section of the Digest applies to Franklin County, and the sheriff had no authority to purchase the disinfectant from appellant. There was no showing made that an appropriation had been made which would warrant the purchase of the disinfectant; and, in the absence thereof, the purchase could not be made. Madison County v. Simpson, 173 Ark. 755 , 293 S. W. 34 .

In the absence of an appropriation for the purchase, the county judge could neither have made such a contract on his own motion, nor have ratified the contract made by the sheriff. In Leatham & Co. v. Jackson County, 122 Ark. 114 , 182 S. W. 570 , it was held that the county court might ratify an unauthorized contract made in behalf of the county, if the contract was one the county could have made i.n the first instance. The object of providing in advance for the appropriation was to prevent an expenditure for county purposes of an amount greater than the current income. Amendment No. 10, Constitution of Arkansas; State use of Prairie County v. Leathem, 170 Ark. 1004 , 282 S. W. 367 ; Dixie Culvert Co. v. Perry County, 174 Ark. 107 , 294 S. W. 381 ; and Polk County v. Mena Star, 175 Ark. 76 , 298 S. W. 1002 .

' It follows that the judgment of the circuit court was correct, and it will be affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1934: 11989: 11997: 119342026peak 1934 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Sanders v. Bradley County Human Services Public Facilities Board956 S.W.2d 187 (Ark. 1997)
  2. Yaffe Iron Metal Company v. Pulaski County67 S.W.2d 1017 (Ark. 1934)
  3. Dean Leasing, Inc. v. Van Buren County767 S.W.2d 316 (Ark. Ct. App. 1989)

Most recent

  1. Sanders v. Bradley County Human Services Public Facilities Board956 S.W.2d 187 (Ark. 1997)
  2. Dean Leasing, Inc. v. Van Buren County767 S.W.2d 316 (Ark. Ct. App. 1989)
  3. Yaffe Iron Metal Company v. Pulaski County67 S.W.2d 1017 (Ark. 1934)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Polk Cnty. v. Mena Star Co., 298 S.W. 1002 (Ark. 1927) 28
Leathem & Co. v. Jackson Cnty., 182 S.W. 570 (Ark. 1916) 28
Dixie Culvert Mfg. Co. v. Perry Cnty., 294 S.W. 381 (Ark. 1927) 15
State ex rel. Prairie Cnty. v. Leathem & Co., 282 S.W. 367 (Ark. 1926) 9
Madison Cnty. v. Simpson, 293 S.W. 34 (Ark. 1927) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list