Title: Brewer v. Hawkins

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

408 S.W.2d 492 (1966) E. L. BREWER et al., Appellants, v. Marlin HAWKINS, Appellee. No. 5-3912. Supreme Court of Arkansas. November 21, 1966. *493 Bethel B. Larey and Richard S. Arnold, Texarkana, for appellants. Gordon & Gordon, Morrilton, and Jack L. Lessenberry, Little Rock, for appellee. AMSLER, Justice. This is a taxpayers' suit against the Sheriff and Collector of Conway County that was originally filed in the Conway County Chancery Court. The defendant (appellee here) demurred and the Chancellor, sua sponte, transferred the case to the Circuit Court. The Circuit Judge denied a motion to transfer the cause back to equity, sustained the demurrer and dismissed the suit with prejudice. This appeal followed. The petition in chancery set forth the duties of the collector with respect to the collection of various fines, costs, fees, commissions and other emoluments of his office and accounting therefor and then alleged, inter alia: Prayer was for an accounting, judgment in favor of the county and related relief. We have an abundance of cases of this sort approving equity as the proper forum, especially where an accounting is involved. State, for Use of Greene County v. McCoy, 187 Ark. 827, 62 S.W.2d 967; Fuller v. State, for Use of Drainage Dist. No. 3, Craighead County, 112 Ark. 91, 164 S.W. 770; McCoy v. State to Use of Greene County, 190 Ark. 297, 79 S.W.2d 94. The learned Chancellor should not have transferred the case to the Circuit Court. The Circuit Judge predicated his dismissal of the suit largely on the statute of limitations and we think he thereby fell into error. In testing the sufficiency of a complaint that is assaulted by means of a demurrer we accept as true all allegations in the complaint that are properly pled. Also all inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom. Perrin v. Price, 210 Ark. 535, 196 S.W.2d 766; Watson v. Poindexter, 176 Ark. 1065, 5 S.W.2d 299; Herndon v. Gregory, 190 Ark. 702, 81 S.W.2d 849, 82 S.W.2d 244; St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co. v. City of Hughes, 231 Ark. 530, 331 S.W.2d 106. The averment of concealment in plaintiffs' petition in Chancery, when accepted as true, renders the pleading invulnerable to demurrer and presents a fact question on which the appellants are entitled to offer proof. If it can be shown that there was in fact concealment by appellee the statute of limitations would not begin to run until discovery of the condition complained of. State of Tennessee v. Barton, 210 Ark. 816, 198 S.W.2d 512; Quattlebaum v. Busbea, 204 Ark. 96, 162 S.W.2d 44; City National Bank v. Sternberg, 195 Ark. 503, 114 S.W.2d 39. *495 Appellee makes reference to a number of suggested deficiencies in the complaint and the possible necessity for bringing in additional parties but these are all matters that may be brought to the attention of the trial court. The case is reversed and remanded to the Circuit Court with directions that it be transferred back to the Chancery Court of Conway County for further consideration after the demurrer has been overruled.