Legal Opinion · Dissent

Shultz v. Carroll

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 12, 1923Published

1DissentMcCulloch, C. J.

It seems to me that it is entirely too strict a rule of interpretation to say that the record of the levying court does noi show that a levy of five mills was made for school purposes. It is true we have held that “to validate a tax levy it is essential that i-t be done in the manner prescribed by the statute, and this should be shown in the manner therein described,” but the record should he given a reasonable interpretation in determining what is meant by its language.. Neither the members of the levying court, the presiding judge nor the clerk are required to be learned in law, and literal…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Beasley v. BratcherSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API