finding that the circuit court had jurisdiction to enjoin the University of Arkansas Board of Trustees for the failure to follow charitable trust guidelines under ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity
How later courts described this case
- finding that the circuit court had jurisdiction to enjoin the University of Arkansas Board of Trustees for the failure to follow charitable trust guidelines under ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity
- allowing injunctive relief for State acts that are illegal, unconstitutional or ultra vires
- allowing a late answer to be filed when there “was no 15 prejudice to these appellants by the appellees’ delay in filing their answer”
- “We view our cases as allowing actions that are illegal, are unconstitutional, or are ultra vires to be enjoined.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Webb Hubbell, Chief Justice, concurring in part; dissentingin part. In order to reach a just result, the majority modifies Art. 5, § 20 of the Arkansas Constitution. Governmental immunity is generally a product of the common law, having been “derived by implication.” Keifer & Keifer v. R.F.C., 306 U.S. 381 (1939); Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U.S. 313 (1934). However, immunity in Arkansas is constitutionally mandated by Art. 5, § 20, and cannot be cast aside at the whim of the judiciary. The constitution is “not an enabling, but a restraining act” [Straub v. Gordon, 27 Ark. 625 (1872)], and the duty of the judiciary is to uphold it. Muncrief v. Hall, Secretary of State, 222 Ark. 570 , 262 S.W.2d 92 (1953).
We could reach the same result by upholding the trial court’s finding that a charitable trust was created by Mrs. Cammack’s bequest. The University Trustees are then additionally trustees of this separate charitable trust, and they act or fail to act not as representatives of the State but as trustees of Mrs. Cammack’s charitable trust. We need not reach governmental immunity.
Also, the chancellor cannot impose a reverter to the heirs. State ex. rel. Atty. General v. Van Buren School Dist. No. 42, 191 Ark. 1096 , 89 S.W.2d 605 (1936). In the event of the Board’s failure to develop the bequest within a reasonable period of time, the trustees may be removed and new ones appointed to comply with the terms of the charitable trust.