Sewer District No. 1 v. School District
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District, in Chancery. Styles T. Rowe, Judge. Each suit was necessary. Sand. & EL Dig., §§ 5341-5344. If several suits are instituted where one only is necessary] the plaintiff will recover the costs of but one. 5 Enc. PL & Pr. 339 ; 27 Vt. 766; Sand. & H. Dig., § 5708. Motion to retax costs-was not the proper remedy. Sand. & EL Dig., §§ 5350-51; 35 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District, in Chancery. Styles T. Rowe, Judge. Each suit was necessary. Sand. & EL Dig., §§ 5341-5344. If several suits are instituted where one only is necessary] the plaintiff will recover the costs of but one. 5 Enc. PL & Pr. 339 ; 27 Vt. 766; Sand. & H. Dig., § 5708. Motion to retax costs-was not the proper remedy. Sand. & EL Dig., §§ 5350-51; 35 Mo. App. 232; 68 Iowa, 233. An officer can charge for services only actually and officially rendered. Sand. & EL Dig., § 807. The recitals of the motion to retax costs are admitted, and the motion…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
The board of improvement of Sewer District No. 1 of Fort Smith, Arkansas, filed a complaint in equity in the Sebastian circuit court for the Fort Smith district for the condemnation and sale of certain real estate to pay a special assessment levied upon it for the purpose of constructing sewers, of which sixty-six lots or parcels were the property of the School District of Fort Smith, the same having been returned delinquent on account of the nonpayment of the assessment. The school district was made a defendant. A summons was issued, and in the names of the owners and defendants therein…