Chicot County v. Sherwood


Chicot County v. Sherwood, 148 U.S. 529 (1893)
the Supreme Court of the United States
Syllabus
4419184Chicot County v. Sherwood, 148 U.S. 529 (1893) — Syllabus1893the Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States

148 U.S. 529

CHICOT COUNTY  v.  SHERWOOD

Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas

No. 170. Submitted: Mar. 24, 1893. --- Decided: Apr. 3, 1893. 

Court Documents

An action will lie in a Circuit Court of the United States in the State of Arkansas at the suit of a citizen of New York, against a county in Arkansas, to recover on bonds and coupons issued by the county to aid in the construction of a railroad and held by the citizen of New York, notwithstanding the provisions in the act of the Legislature of Arkansas of February 27, 1879, repealing all laws authorizing counties within the State to be sued, requiring all demands against them to be presented to the County Courts of the several counties for allowance or rejection; and allowing appeals to be prosecuted from the decisions of those courts.

An answer to a declaration on such bonds and coupons setting out the statutory provisions under which the bonds were issued and averring that the election under which they were claimed to have been authorized was not a free and fair election but was a sham "as shown by papers filed with the county clerk," and reciting various irregularities which were alleged to appear "by reference to certified copies of the papers sent into the clerk's office" from some of the various precincts of the county, and concluding "and so the county says that there was in fact no election held in said county on February 27, 1872, to determine whether or not the county would subscribe to the capital of said railroad company and issue bonds to pay the same" presents no issuable question of fact, going to the merits of the suit, and if demurred to, the demurrer should be sustained.

While matters of fact, well pleaded, are admitted by a demurrer, conclusions of law are not so admitted.


The case is stated in the opinion.


Mr. D. H. Reynolds for plaintiff in error.


No appearance for defendants in error.


This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse