Clay v. Pulaski County

20 S.W. 251, 56 Ark. 468, 1892 Ark. LEXIS 191
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided October 8, 1892·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Hemingway, J.

It is well settled by the decisions of this court, that there can be no recovery against a county for services in caring for or burying a poor person residing therein unless such person has been declared a pauper, by the county court of the county, prior to the performance of the services. Brem v. Ark. Co. Court, 9 Ark. 240; Lee Co. v. Lackie, 30 Ark. 764; Cantrell v. Clark Co. 47 Ark. 239; Clark Co. v. Huie, 49 Ark. 145. It follows that the court below properly held that the appellant could not maintain this suit against Pulaski county. Whether he could maintain such a suit against the city of Little Rock is a question not involved in the case, which we, for that reason, have not considered and could not decide.

Affirm.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Clay v. Pulaski County, 20 S.W. 251, 56 Ark. 468, 1892 Ark. LEXIS 191 (Ark. 1892).

20 S.W. 251 (Clay v. Pulaski County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hart v. Wimberly
296 S.W. 39 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1927)