Wilder v. Little Rock
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; J. E. Martineau, Chancellor; The city may extend its fire limits, but cannot give it an ex post facto effect, as it attempted to do in this case. The permit contains no provision for revocation, and the law provides for none, and the, city’s action was .without authority. 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 458 and oases cited.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; J. E. Martineau, Chancellor; The city may extend its fire limits, but cannot give it an ex post facto effect, as it attempted to do in this case. The permit contains no provision for revocation, and the law provides for none, and the, city’s action was .without authority. 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 458 and oases cited. See also case note thereto; 3' Dillion, Municipal Corp. p. 1875; 145 111. 451. By the issuance of the permit and the payment by appellant of rent in advance on the premises and other expenditures for lumber, etc., he acquired a vested right which…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
On March 17, 1921, appellant applied to the building inspector of the city of Little Rock for a permit to erect a frame building on a certain lot in this city, said lot not then being within the fire limits as fixed by existing ordinances of the city. The structure was to cost approximately $1,000, and on the same day the permit was issued to appellant, signed by the building inspector and countersigned by the city collector, in accordance with the provisions of the ordinance. At that time there was pending before the city council a proposed ordinance extending the fire limits so as to…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Smith v. Western Hide & Fur Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Jones v. Kelley Trust Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
- C. C. Julian Oil & Royalties Co. v. Oklahoma CitySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934
- Smith v. City of ArkadelphiaSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1999
- City of Fort Smith v. BonnerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937