Buxton v. City of Nashville
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Howard Chancery Court; James D. Shaver, Chancellor; 1. No petition as required by law was ever presented. A majority of land owners did not sign. The cost exceeded the limit. The limits extended beyond the city and embraced- territory disconnected with the city. It was not necessary to bring this suit within the thirty days. Pope v. Nashville, ms., is not conclusive of this case.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Howard Chancery Court; James D. Shaver, Chancellor; 1. No petition as required by law was ever presented. A majority of land owners did not sign. The cost exceeded the limit. The limits extended beyond the city and embraced- territory disconnected with the city. It was not necessary to bring this suit within the thirty days. Pope v. Nashville, ms., is not conclusive of this case. Appellants were not parties to that suit. 34 Ark. 291, 302; 35 Icl. 62, 67; lb. 450; 36 Id. 196. Res judicata can not be invoked. 66 Ark. 336; 96 Id. 87. 2. Petitioners may withdraw their names from a…
1Opinion of the Court
WOOD, J.,
(after stating the facts). (1) The finding and judgment of the court were correct. The districts which were challenged by-the proceedings instituted in the chancery court were formed under act 125 of the Acts of 1913, approved March 3, 1913. The first section of that act, among other things, contains a provision that, “the owners of real property within such district shall be heard before the council which shall determine whether the signers of said petition constitute a majority in value, and the finding of the council shall be conclusive unless within thirty days thereafter suit is…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Kirst v. Street Improvement District No. 120Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
- White v. MoffettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Martin v. McDiarmidSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
- Southern Insurance v. HastingsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1897
- Newton v. RussianSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rockefeller v. HogueSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1968