Legal Opinion

Miller v. Yell and Pope Bridge District

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 7, 1927PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). The plaintiff relies for a reversal of the decree upon the ground that the interest on the contení}dated bond issue of $300,000 should be included as part of the cost of constructing the bridge. The chancery court held against the contention of the plaintiff, and the correctness of its decision depends upon the interpretation to be placed upon the act creating the improvement district. Yell and Pope Bridge District -was created 'by act No. 154 of the Legislature of 1925, Acts of 1925, p. 450. Section 6 of the act reads as follows:

“The bridge contemplated…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Fitzgerald v. WalkerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
  2. Rayder v. WarrickSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
  3. Summers v. Road Improvement District No. 16Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
  4. Turner v. EderingtonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
  5. Hill v. American Book Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1926

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Merchants' Transfer & Warehouse Co. v. GatesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
  2. Cook v. BevillSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1969
  3. Berry v. SaleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
  4. Arkansas State Licensing Board for General Contractors v. LaneSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1948
  5. Call v. WhartonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1942

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API