*1 53 give to Roclmer. The court defendants’ did, however, jury appellants’ instruction which informed the 1,No. adjust them to all and ordered consider defense, they proper. viewing ques ments which deemed light tioned instruction in the instruction defendants’ say necessary No. we cannot court It is not erred. applicable questions all law to the case be stated each instruction. It is sufficient all if when instructions, correctly. a considered as state the law Roland v. whole, Terryland, Inc., 221 Ark. 2d 315. S. W.
Cross-appellant contends that was no Rollison there jury upon return a could verdict evidence agаinst judgment argues that in the event the him Wrights, a reversal as to the without should reversed judgment against a him be left with he would as to him, support judgment testimony it. Since the without Wrights being against have affirmed, filed necessаry supersedeas it is not bond consider herein, possibility. Affirmed. County. Co. v. Jackson Road Rock S. W.
5-2261 Opinion January delivered 30, *2 CJiowning, Burrow, Hamilton Moore, Mitchell, <& appellant. Hodges, for Kaneaster Boyce, Prosecuting Attorney, Wayne Pick- Fred M. Special appellee. County, for for ens, Counsel Jackson appeal arises Johnson, Associate Justice. This Jim out of a “contract” in violation of Amendment No. inter to the Arkansas Constitution. Thе amendment, provides alia that: incorpo-
“The fiscal affairs of counties, cities, rated towns shall be conducted on a sound financial basis, County agent any levying no Court or board or сounty any shall make or authorize contract or make any purpose allowance for in excess of whatsoever year the revenue from all sources for fiscal in which the any County said contract or allowance nor shall made; Judge, County county sign or Clerk, other officer or any script issue warrant make allowance excess of the revenue from all sources for the current fiscal ’’ year. Judge County the Jackson October agreement
purported an with the to enter styled “Equipment Rock Road Rock Road The Little Lease Contract.” grader Company a motor delivered to Jackson maintaining county in buildincr and roads. use delivery county by and nsed retained was It peri- repairs and occasional year with through Judge testified оdic overhauls. of 1958 good at the end condition
grader in as excepted. Rent- ordinary tear wear delivered, when “lease paid called for amount in the als were delivery the maсhine beginning contract” periods. quarterly No additional for five October January paid up at which time were rentals pick up county machine. advised possession undisputed had that the It is making grader months without fourteen for some motor *3 whereupon payments Little Rock Road the rental County Company claim with filed its County the claim. which disallowed of Court Jackson appealed from Little Rock Road County to the Circuit Court Jackson the disallowance the order of the Court. which affirmed Machinery Company has The Rock Road appealed judgment from to this Court Circuit County asserting that it is entitled to Court Jackson theory quantum claim an allowance of its on the meruit.
Appellant argue does not or that contend the “con- in at tract” the case bаr is valid. In fact, concede following appears that the “contract” is void. page appellant’s 34 of brief: “It should be borne in appellant’s presupposes, that mind the form of сlaim appellant that concedes, the contracts of lease with purchase option were void as violative of Amendment 10 to the In No. Constitution.” view of this concession upon validity invalidity we not are called decide the deciding of the “contract” itself but in are case appellant’s Certainly, accordance concession. this concession in at the case bar should not be construed to prohibited entering mean that counties are valid lease contracts. argues eloquently
Appellant a number of cited and position payment seeking his to sustain cases 56 quantum examined be made on meruit. We have
should excep they, cited and find that without each the cases distinguishable case at are in fact from the bаr. tion,' appellant upon principal case which relies as basis Riggs theory Perry v. A. for their J. Tractor Company, Although 139 2d 304, 200 Ark. S. W. Perry County facts facts ease are similar upon in the case at find case that bar, we review of that Amendment No. 10 not raised not and the court does it; fact, court 10 discuss cites the non-amendment by appellant: Mfg. Co., cited Ft. v. cases, Smith Giant 440; 190 Ark. 2d Iron S. W. Metal Co. & Yaffе County, v. Pulaski questions 188 Ark. 67 W. 2d 1017. Since S. presented not the record cannot consid appeal, Anderson, ered on Hanson Ark. questions 736; S. W. and since constitutional are never necessary, decided unless Henderson, Wood v. 225 Ark. Perry supra, 226; S. W. case, properly decided then record before the court. at the case Amendment bar, No. 10 is raised stated above, concedes that thе “contract” is void under its terms.
It is well settled that a contract with a against exceeding because of a *4 void restriction current give any right recovery revenues does not rise to against county for the value of the consideration passing although under contract such consideration accepted by is county. and used See: A. L. R. 812, and cases cited therein. The decisions Court consistently have adhered to this rule. The case of Vick Consolidated School District No. 21 New, Ark. directly point controlling S. W. 2d and here. That case holds that a where contract is void ex bеcause pressly by recovery forbidden law there can be no either quantum the contract or on the basis of meruit for benefits by conferred virtue contrary thereof. To hold to the prоvision would render this completely constitutional though appears useless. Even the rule here reiterated persons county harsh, who deal with authorities charged in Arkansas are notice snch officials expenditures are limited in their and must make their accordingly. contracts If this were not such officials so, possess authority alone would to deal with these way progress” individuals in such a “in the name of bankruptcy could result every county, in the in the State.
Affirmed. and McFaddin J., Ward, JJ., C. concur.
Harris, concurring. Although I J., reach re- the same Ward, majority, by yet impelled, sult reached I feel because important imрlications try clarify of the involved, to point. one opinion principal points:
The majority rest on two (a) (b) The contract herein involved void, since recovery quan- it is void there cаn be no on the basis of tum meruit.
(a) My prime point. concern is with the first portions material of the contract entered be- tween as lessor and the as lessee read as follows: undersigned
“The Lessee . . . leases from Little Rock Road . . . the fol- lowing equipment following and on the terms and con- (describing machinery). ditions:
[******] period beginning This is for 3 months day per 31st of October, 1956, at rental $1,500.00 granted option 3 months . . . Leasee to re- period new this lease at the end of the hereof for further periods of three months . . .
[******] hereby agrees 6. Lessor to sell to Lessee the above equipment period described at the end of this at lease price the of $20,870.00cash. In the event the Lessee ex- price, purchase option at said all of the to the
ercises ’’ priсe. paid be credited said will rentals parts pertinent No. The Amend- of Amendment of read follows: “The affairs No. 10 as fiscal ment finan- be a sound . . . shall conducted counties county . . author- no . shall make or cial and basis, any from in of revenue ... excess ize contract year which contract or in said all for the fiscal sources . .” allowance made . point not obli-
I that Jackson want to out payments, any gated contract make under the above to except months. This Coun- rentals for the first three perfect provided only ty right that the rentals had to do year. in Thеrefore, for that did not exceed any given year revenues (as legal right long as had a year) to of that did not exceed revenues rentals period periods three months renew the fоr a obligated to do so. if it to do but it not so, desired was arrange- nothing an I in that kind of submit that there is No. 10. ment which Amendment is forbidden purpose explained in No. 10 Amendment Hospital Ark. Association, v. Luter Pulaski . . that 34 S. 2d where stated: “. W. it is governmental agencies prohibited were named contracting obligations in character fiscal year year. that other excess the revenues go only pay thеy go, they far and can words, must as so pay, purpose . .” effect of can . explained in different words Amendment No. was was Tatum, where it Lake 175 Ark. W. S. Amendment No. 10 stated that it the intention year pay in “. . . make of each the revenue during year the revenue incurred that that debtedness year applied pay subsequent lia of a should not bility past year, . .” . of a fiscal my many in this state
It is information counties repair possibly an ade- build, maintain, not could *6 right system are denied the quate if road expensive. very machinery necessary often Co-Op. Hill. Assn. v. Consumers W. 2d 657 342 S. 5-2301 February Opinion 6, 1961. delivered 6, 1961] [Rehearing denied March appellants. Teague Coates, McMillen, £ appellee. Carpenter Finch, for £ appellant, Ed. Associate Justice. F. MoFaddin, corporation Cooperative -a Association, Consumers organized Kansas, under the laws of State the. City, author- Missouri, and is home office Kansas
its corporation foreign ized in Arkansas as to do business Stats.). appellees (§ seq., Ark. constitute 64-1201et Liquefied Control Board of the State Petroleum Gas No. 18 the Acts authorized Act Arkansas, Assembly together with all amend- General