Hempstead v. Auditor

16 Ark. 57
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedJanuary 15, 1855
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 16 Ark. 57 (Hempstead v. Auditor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hempstead v. Auditor, 16 Ark. 57 (Ark. 1855).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice English

delivered the opinion of the Court.

On the 12th of December, 1853, Bernard E. Hempstead filed a petition for mandamus against the Auditor, in the Pulaski Circuit Court, alleging in substance, that he was elected, by the General Assembly, at the sesison of 1852-53, Land Agent, for the "Washington District, under the provisions of the act of the 12th January, 1853,amendatory of existing laws regulating the landed •i/nierest of this State.” That, on the 14th of March, 1853, after his election, he took the official oath, and executed the bond, prescribed by the 5th section of said act; and, on the 17th of the same month, was duly commissioned by the Governor. Certified copies of the oath, bond and commission, are exhibited.

That ho thus became one of the five Swamp Land Agents, elected and qualified under said act, and as such, entered upon the duties of his office, and from thence forward continued to act as such, and ever had been, and still was ready to discharge all the duties incumbent on him by virtue of said act, and claimed to be entitled to receive a salary and compensation, as such Swamp. Land Agent, at the rate of eight hundred dollars per annum, payable in the manner specified in said act.

The petition continues as follows:

“Your petitioner further represents, that he procured a well bound book, wherein to enter each location or purchase of land; and in discharge of what he then, and still conceives to be his duty, sold swamp land, from time to time, as such Swamp Land Agent, and received Swamp Land Scrip or certificates therefor, and made report to the Auditor of Public Accounts, in accordance with the 16th section of said act, touching the operations of his office, for the year 1853, ending on the 30th day of June, 1853, whereby it was made manifest that 7,427.84 acres of 1st class, 2,84T.68 of 2d class of swamp lands, bad been sold, and entered at that office, and for which was received by your petitioner, properly assigned to the State, according to the law in that behalf provided, 14 Treasurer’s Certificates, amounting to $1,851 54; 32 pieces of 1st class Swamp Land Scrip, for 160 acres each; and IT pieces of 2d class Swamp Land Scrip for 160 acres each; and which scrip and certificates wei’e cancelled according to law; all of which more fully appears, by a copy of the report of your petitioner, ending the 30th June, 1853, marked Exhibit O., and prayed to be taken as part of this petition, the original having been returned to the petitioner, by the Auditor of Public Accounts, the said Auditor not considering’ the petitioner as Land Agent, until the maps and plats were furnished to your petitioner; and the Auditor also returned to him the land scrip sent with said report, and which was afterwards paid, and deposited with the Treasurer, as hereinafter shown: and which return will show the date of the purchase, by whom purchased, residence of the parties, section or part of section, township and range, the number of acres of swamp land of the 1st class and 2d class, and the locality thereof, in the Washington District, up to the 30th June, 1853, amounting, in dollars, up to the last mentioned time, to $6,651 54; and which swamp land certificates and scrip have been deposited and turned over to the State Treasurer, by your petitioner, in accordance with law; as well as scrip received the half year ending with the 31st December, 1853, without any reservation of salary, compensation, or fees; and that the petitioner has received nothing since his qualification as Swamp Land Agent, and entering upon the duties of his office, and which deposits and payments to the Treasurer will more fully appear by reference to the certificate of John II. Crease, Treasurer of Arkansas, dated Tth December, 1853, marked Exhibit _Z?., and prayed to be taken as part hereof.”
“Tour petitioner represents that the Auditor of Public Accounts, although requested, has refused, and still refuses, to make settlements with your petitioner, and draw his warrants on the Treasurer, for the salary of jour petitioner, quarterly or otherwise, howsoever, payable out of the lands sold, or the proceeds thereof, when in truth, and in fact, your petitioner, under the said law, is well and legally entitled to the same.”

Prayer for writ of mandamus against Christopher 0. Danley, as Auditor, &c., requiring him to audit the account of petitioner, as Swamp Land Agent, at Washington, for his salary, at the rate of $800 per annum, from the llth of March to the 30th September, 1853, and to draw his warrant on the Treasurer therefor, or that he show cause, &c.

The court, on the presentation of the petition, ordered an alternative writ of mandamus to issue, to which the Auditor made the following response, in substance:

That he did refuse and still refuses, to make settlement with the petitioner as Swamp Land Agent, for the office at Washington, and to draw his warrant, as such Auditor,' on the Treasurer, for the salary of petitioner as Swamp Land Agent, quarterly or otherwise, in manner as set forth in said writ, because respondent was advised that by the law of the land, the petitioner was not, on the said 30th day of September, 1853, in office as such Land Agent, and could not legally discharge any of the duties appertaining to his said office of Land Agent, and because the petitioner had not, on the said 30th day of September, 1853, been furnished with the lx>o7cs, maps and plats of the lands of the State, in the district of lands for which the said office at Washington was created, as required by law: and because Lambert J. Reardon was, on the 30th day of September, 1853, the Land Agent of this State, by virtue of law, having been elected such by the Legislature, and, as such, entitled to the salary of said office; and that if respondent were to obey the mandate of said writ, it would be a violation of the duties imposed upon him by law as such Auditor, and subject him to grievous losses and penalties; wherefore, &c.

The petitioner demurred to the response, on the following grounds.

1. That the said response places the right of the petitioner to compensation, on the fact of receiving the maps, plats, &c., whereas, by the law of the land his salary commenced from the 17tli day of March, 1853, (the date of his commission.)

2. That by the law of the land, the said Lambert J. Neardon was not Land Agent of this State, after the said Swamp Land Agents were commissioned as such.

3. The respose is in other respects informal and insufficient, &c.

The Auditor joined in the demurrer: the Court adjudged the response to be sufficient, overruled the demurrer thereto, refused to order a peremptory mandamus, and the petitioner appealed to this Court.

The petitioner claimed his salary, as Swamp Land Agent for the "Washington. District, from the 17th of March (the date of his commission,) to the 30th September, 1853, the close of the current fiscal year of the State, down to which time he had not been furnished by the Auditor, with the maps, plats, &c., of the lands of the State embraced in his district: and the question presented for the decision of this court, is, whether the petitioner was entitled to his salary from the date of his commission, or from the time he was furnished with such maps, plats, &c.

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

Related

Webb v. Kelsey
49 S.W. 819 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1899)
Deloach v. Brownfield
22 Ark. 344 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1860)
Hempstead v. Underhill's Heirs
20 Ark. 337 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1859)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 Ark. 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hempstead-v-auditor-ark-1855.