Walton v. Commissioners of Light Improvement District No. 1
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Saline Chancery Court; J. P. Henderson, Chancellor; 1. The district has no right to purchase the light plant. In view of the allegations in the complaint and the admissions and allegations in the answer, the purchase of the light plant was not abandoned; there is no evidence that the purpose was abandoned. 2. Thg improvement district can do nothing unless given authority by the Constitution or statute. Art. 9, § 27, Const.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Saline Chancery Court; J. P. Henderson, Chancellor; 1. The district has no right to purchase the light plant. In view of the allegations in the complaint and the admissions and allegations in the answer, the purchase of the light plant was not abandoned; there is no evidence that the purpose was abandoned. 2. Thg improvement district can do nothing unless given authority by the Constitution or statute. Art. 9, § 27, Const. Tbe purchase of a light plant is not making an improvement of a public nature and there is no statute authorizing it. 55 Ark. 148. The ordinance was void. 113…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
This suit questions the validity of an improvement district in the city of Benton organized for the purpose of purchasing an electric light plant from a company which had allowed its franchise, obtained from that city, to forfeit. Several questions are raised which we find it unnecessary to decide, as, in our opinion, the petition of the property owners does not contain a majority in value as-required by the Constitution.
The court below found otherwise and prepared an elaborate opinion discussing the various issues raised in the case. But in this opinion the court held that the value of the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Mahan v. WilsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- Lewis v. Forrest City Special Improvement DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Fry v. PoeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
- Smith v. CallahanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928