Legal Opinion

Robertson v. Rural Special School District No. 9

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 9, 1922PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.

(after stating the facts). The decision of the chancellor was correct. We need not decide whether or not Hunter & Sawyer had the authority to sell the bonds. Assuming that they had such authority, the facts in the record bring the case squarely within the rule announced in Rural Special School Dist. No. 30 v. Pine Bluff, 142 Ark. 279, where it was held that bonds issued by the directors of a rural special school district without authority of a majority of the electors, are void, even in the hands of a bona fide holder for-value. The statute provides that all school districts created under the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Mitchell v. Directors of School District No. 13Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
  2. Rural Special School District No. 30 v. Pine BluffSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
  3. Rural Special School District No. 6 v. BlaylockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Rural Special School District No. 50 v. First National BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
  2. Davis v. WhiteSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
  3. Park v. Rural Special School District No. 26Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
  4. Swift v. Common School District No. 8Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1924

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

Powered by the Exa API