Peay v. Kinsworthy
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Jno. E. Martineau, Chancellor; 1.- The appellees are not authorized under the powers granted them to maintain this proceeding. 55 Ark. 148, Kirby’s Digest, § 5726; 56 Ark. 205; 53 Id. 300; Kirby’s Digest, § 5456; 97 Ark. 321; 119 Id. 166. The district has been completed and the commissioners have lost their control of the district.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Jno. E. Martineau, Chancellor; 1.- The appellees are not authorized under the powers granted them to maintain this proceeding. 55 Ark. 148, Kirby’s Digest, § 5726; 56 Ark. 205; 53 Id. 300; Kirby’s Digest, § 5456; 97 Ark. 321; 119 Id. 166. The district has been completed and the commissioners have lost their control of the district. The city of Little Rock has succeeded to all their rights. 1. The commissioners have charge of the improvement until it is completed and accepted. 56 Ark. 205; 97 Id. 321. It was the duty of the commissioners to permit Peay to…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
This suit was brought by appellees, as Commissioners of Sewer Improvement District No. 78 of the City of Little Rock, to enjoin appellant from making connection with the sewers of that District until he shall have made compensation for the value of that use. It was alleged in the coinplaint that appellant, as a private individual and for the purpose of profit, constructed a system of sewers in a territory adjacent to appellees’ district, in consideration of the abutting property owners paying him certain sums of money as compensation for connecting with his sewer, and that appellant, without…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Martin v. HilbSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1890
3Cited by4 opinions
- McClendon v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Sloss v. TurnerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
- Morrilton Homes, Inc. v. Sewer Improvement District No. 4Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1956
- Main v. StahlSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1955