City of Bentonville v. Browne
158 S.W. 161
Ark.
1913
Check Treatment
Smith, J.,

(аfter stating tbe facts). As an owner of рroperty within tbe improvement district, аppellee bad tbe right to sue to prevent ‍‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​‍the city from wasting, or mismanаging, or improperly diverting, tbe funds of tbe improvement district. Russell v. Tate, 52 Ark. 541; Jacksonport v. Watson, 33 Ark. 704; section 13, article 16, of tbe Constitution; section 5485 of Kirby’s Digest. But be bad no right to demand that tbe court order tbe city to construсt ‍‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​‍a water main to bis property, аnd all other questions involved in tbe original decree were collatеral to that one. Browne v. Bentonville, 94 Ark. 80. As to tbe court’s order, directing tbe action to be taken with referenсe to tbe outstanding warrants, payаble out of tbe Avater fund, and in regard to their cancellation, ‍‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​‍it is sufficient tо say that their holders are not pаrties to this proceeding, and tbe сourt was therefore without authority to make any order wbicb affects their validity.

We are of tbe opinion thаt tbe court had tbe authority to direсt that these funds be separately kеpt, and accounted for, and bаd tbe authority to make proper orders to ‍‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​‍enforce that deсree, but we think there has been a substantial compliance with its terms, so fаr as tbe question could be decidеd Avith tbe parties before tbe court.

It appears that accounts have been separately kept, and that the $1,000 Avas actually pаid out of tbe general revenue fund tо the credit of the waterworks fund, although we do not think the court had the authority to administer and direct the expеnditures of the city’s revenue subsequently collected. ‍‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‌​​​‍The courts can not take upon themselves the burden and responsibility of administering the affairs of the municipalities of the State in thе disbursement of their public revenues. The rule in such cases is well stated in the opinion in the former appeal of this case. Browne v. Bentonville, 94 Ark. 80.

The decree of the court is therefore reversed and this supplemental complaint is dismissed.