Fort Smith District v. Eberle
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Dodge (Ark. 1930)
- Kendall v. Henderson (Ark. 1964)
- Bush v. Martineau (Ark. 1927)
- People v. Richards (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)
- Burgess v. Johnson County (Ark. 1923)
- Marshall v. Holland (Ark. 1925)
- Phillips County v. Arkansas State Penitentiary (Ark. 1923)
- Carroll County v. Poynor (Ark. 1920)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This appeal comes from a judgment of allowance by the circuit court on appeal from the county court, of a claim against the county by appellee, as compensation for services as Local Registrar of Vital Statistics.
A certificate of the State Registrar to the County Treasurer, of the amount due was filed with the affidavit required by the statute to authenticate claims against the county, made by appellee, and upon the claim being disallowed, an appeal was taken to the circuit court.
It is conceded that appellee rendered the services charged for under the provisions of the law creating the State Board of Health and Bureau of Vital Statistics, Act 96 of Acts 1913, p. 352.
It is contended that said law is unconstitutional as creating permanent offices, contrary to the provisions of the constitution and in providing for payment out of the county treasury for the services of the local registrar, which is claimed to be a district and State office and in the method of drawing the money from the county treasury.
There is no provision in this act limiting the existence of the boards to any period of time and the writer and Mr. Justice Hart think this furnishes a ground for distinguishing the eases and that a department and offices created by a law, which does not provide for the termination thereof, can in no wise be regarded otherwise than permanent, within the meaning of the Constitution which provided for and designated all permanent offices regarded necessary for the conduct and management of the State’s affairs and expressly prohibited the creation of others.
That part of the act relating to the payment for the services of the local registrar out of the county treasury, can be stricken out without affecting its validity otherwise, since it is easily apparent that the Legislature would have passed the act without that provision in it. Cotham v. Coffman, supra.
It follows that the judgment of the circuit court is erroneous, and it is reversed and the cause dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.