DocketNumber: No. 4-4659
Citation Numbers: 105 S.W.2d 538, 194 Ark. 93
Judges: McHANEY, J.
Filed Date: 5/24/1937
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
On January 21, 1926, the county court of Montgomery county, presided over by appellee, W. J. Ellington, entered an order ascertaining and declaring the outstanding indebtedness of the county to be $120,218. Thereafter, a bond issue was authorized by appropriate orders and bonds were sold in the sum of $112,000, which amount paid off the outstanding indebtedness. On July 30, 1936, more than ten years later, this action was instituted by the then county judge, Joe H. Demby, in the name of the state for the use of the county, charging, in effect, that the indebtedness of the county, prior to the bond issue, amounted approximately to $100,000 represented by county scrip or warrants issued on the basis of fifty cents on the dollar, that is, for a dollar debt a two-dollar warrant was issued; that appellee Ellington was county judge, Watkins was county clerk, Elder was county treasurer and Radford *Page 94 was president of the bank in which all county funds were kept; that county warrants were worth from thirty to fifty cents on the dollar and could have been bought at such prices during the years 1925-26, which was well known to appellees; that appellees conspired together to buy up the warrants at the price stated, sell bonds and cash the warrants at par and thus defraud the county; that appellee Witt was taken into the conspiracy, because he was a lawyer, to help with the legal phases of the enterprise; that they accomplished the purpose of the conspiracy, and thereby defrauded the county out of a large sum of money and that the matter was not discovered until an audit was made of the county books in 1936 by the State Comptroller, and that the facts had been fraudulently concealed from the prosecuting attorney and the taxpayers. Prayer was for an accounting and for judgment against appellees for the amount the county was damaged or for the profits made by them in the transaction, and for the appointment of a master to determine the matter. To this complaint a demurrer was interposed and sustained, whereupon appellants offered to amend, alleging that Witt was attorney for the county in the matter of refunding its indebtedness; that Radford was the agent of the county in all such matters; that they and the county judge, acting together, secured options on county warrants and claims of the face value of more than $100,000 at from thirty-five to seventy-two cents on the dollar, and that, after the bond issue was sold, the proceeds were placed in Radford's bank, and the county's money used in exercising such options, which warrants and claims were cashed by them at eighty-five cents on the dollar, or a gross profit of more than $35,000; that they caused records to be made which concealed the fact of their purchase and that the records of the treasurer showing to whom the money was paid was removed by them from the clerk's files to conceal the fact that they had received any part of said funds. The court refused to consider this amendment, dismissed the complaint, and the case is here on appeal.
We think the court correctly sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint as being without equity. *Page 95
If a complaint shows on its face that the cause is barred by the statute of limitations, it may be reached by demurrer, unless a ground of avoidance is shown. Smith v. M. P. Rd. Co.,
The court correctly sustained the demurrer to the complaint, so the decree is accordingly affirmed.
GRIFFIN SMITH, C.J., disqualified and not participating.