28 S.W.2d 1062 | Ark. | 1930
The city council of the city of Pine Bluff created an improvement district for the purpose of improving Fifth Avenue and Ohio Street in said city. The commissioners for said improvement district are J. F. Hilton, Dr. O. W. Clark and J. F. Rutherford. On November 20, 1929, the district through its commissioners entered into a contract with Chris L. Wright as engineer for said district. Section 7 of said contract is as follows: "If, because of the second party's instructions, permission or neglect at any time, it shall appear that the work of the improvement is not being carried out according to the plans and specifications, the State Highway Commission shall have the right to terminate this contract." The commissioners of the improvement district thereafter discharged the engineer, and he thereupon began this action in the Jefferson Chancery Court for a mandatory injunction to restore him as engineer, and to require the commissioners to perform said contract. Appellee prayed that, if the relief above asked could not be granted, he be given judgment against the district, and that commissioners be ordered to pay same out of the first money coming into their hands. He also prayed, if the relief above asked could not be granted, that he be given judgment against the commissioners individually. Appellants filed demurrer, motion to strike and answer. Numbers of witnesses testified, and the evidence is voluminous. Much of the evidence is as to the improper conduct and management of the parties. It would serve no useful purpose to set it out because the only question for us to determine is, did the commissioners have the right to discharge the engineer? If they had that right under the law, they could exercise such right, and their motives would be immaterial. After the hearing by the court a permanent injunction was issued, and the district and *921
commissioners have appealed. Appellee calls attention to the case of Philpot v. Taylor,
The commissioners of the improvement district in this case have the same right to employ an engineer as in other cases. The only additional requirement is that the engineer selected shall be acceptable to the State Highway Commission. They also have the right to discharge, but they have by their contract with the engineer given the State Highway Commission the right to discharge for certain causes. The commissioners of the improvement district may discharge, not only for the causes mentioned in the contract, but for other causes also. This is a suit to compel the specific performance of the contract employing appellee as engineer, and the remedy at law is complete and adequate, and for that reason a court of equity has no jurisdictions. Leonard v. Board of Directors,
Holding as we do that the commissioners of the improvement district had the right to discharge appellee, it is unnecessary to consider the other questions discussed by counsel. The decree of the chancery court is reversed, *923 and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint.
HART, C.J., HUMPHREYS and BUTLER, JJ., dissent.