Meek v. Christian
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, J.,
(after stating the facts).- It is first sought
to uphold the decree of the chancery court on the ground that the holders of the certificates issued to C. S. Christian were entitled to recover the face valué thereof and the accrued interest. It is claimed that there was a legislative assessment of benefits, and that, in making the same, the lawmakers are presumed to have had before them information as to the cost of the-construction of the proposed roads according to the plans and specifications within the rule announced in Summers v. Cole, 144 Ark. 494, and other decisions of 'this…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bowman Engineering Co. v. Arkansas & Missouri Highway DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- Morgan Engineering Co. v. Cache River Drainage DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- Summers v. ColeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
- Pritchett v. Road Improvement District No. 4Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1925