This сause was heard in the court below upon a stipulation as to facts frоm which it appears that the municipal court of the city of Newport in Jаckson county was duly and legally created by an ordinance of that city, enacted April 17, 1944. Following the passage of the ordinance Fred M. Pickens was duly elected judge of this court and served as such. Harry Grimes was elected сlerk of this court and was succeeded in office by O. T. Richardson, and eaсh served for a time in that capacity. The salary of the judge was $2,400 per yеar, payable in monthly installments of $200. The salary of the clerk was $1,200 per annum, payable in monthly-installments of .$100.
Authority for the passage of this ordinance was dеrived from Act No. 60 of the Acts of 1927, p. 157, as amended by subsequent, legislation.
It is stipulatеd that under the ordinance and the provisions of the legislative acts, Jaсkson county is liable for one-half the salaries claimed by the judge and clerks, and it was also stipulated that there was a balance of $9,000 from the' aрpropriation for general county purposes in the general revenue fund. Claims for the services of these officers were filed with the county court and disallowed, but upon appeal to the circuit court they were аllowed, and ordered paid, and this appeal is from that judgment.
These claims were disallowed for the reason that the municipal court had been сreated subsequent to the last prior meeting of the quorum court of the county, and no appropriation had been made for their payment. The appeal presents therefore, the single question, whether these clаims may be allowed without an express appropriation having been mаde by the quorum court.
We think the court below correctly held that these claims should be paid, although no express appropriation for that purрose had been made. The case of Crawford County v. City of Van Buren,
Section 16 of Act 60 of thе Acts of 1927, as amended by Act 141 of 1935, requires the quorum court to make an appropriation to pay the county’s part of the expenses of this cоurt, and provides that this duty may be enforced by mandamus. There was an appropriation for county general purposes and' this appropriatiоn would cover the county’s part of the expense of this court, although thе municipal court was not in existence when the appropriation wаs made. In contemplation of the law, this expense was one which might be, and, in fact, was imposed upon the county.
Adhering as we do to our decision in the Crawford county case, supra, the reasoning of which we do not repeat, it follows that the judgment here appealed from must be affirmed, and it is so ordered.