Burrus v. Board of Improvement of Sewer Improvement District No. 1
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; John E. Martinecm, Chancellor; 1, The assessments are void because the property received no benefits from the sewer system. 93 Ark. 543. 2. There has been no final valid assessment of benefits. 1. The ordinance was duly passed. The assessments were valid and beneficial.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; John E. Martinecm, Chancellor; 1, The assessments are void because the property received no benefits from the sewer system. 93 Ark. 543. 2. There has been no final valid assessment of benefits. 1. The ordinance was duly passed. The assessments were valid and beneficial. All the acts of the directors were according to law. 98 Ark. 544; Kirby’s Digest, § § 5684-5. 2. Any objectionable or unconstitutional parts of an ordinance may be stricken out where clerical errors do not invalidate an ordinance. 37 Ark. 356; 80 Id. 150 ; 93 Id. 168; 94 Id. 422; 95 Id. 327;…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCULLOCH, C. J.
An improvement district designated as Sewer Improvement District No. 1 of Argenta was organized in that city (now North Little Rock) for the purpose of constructing a system of sewers in the territory described. The district covers a large area, perhaps the greater portion of that city. The ordinance levying the assessments on the property in the district was passed by the city council.on September 17, 1914. There was publication of the ordinance in a newspaper, as required by statute (Kirby’s Digest, § 5685), the next day after its passage, and a republication of the ordinance on October 9,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Board of Improvement of Sewer Improvement District No. 1 v. PollardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Waters v. WhitcombSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
3Cited by1 opinion
- Wigley v. HouseSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929