Butler v. Mills
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Little River Circuit Court. William P. Feazel, Judge. The number of voters necessary to give the court •jurisdiction to order the election was 674. Neither of the petitions for the four designated places contained the requisite number, i. e. one-third of the qualified voters. Sand. & H. Dig. secs. 943, 945; 15 L. R. A. 503-4. The names on the different petitions designating different places cannot be joined to give the requisite one-third.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Little River Circuit Court. William P. Feazel, Judge. The number of voters necessary to give the court •jurisdiction to order the election was 674. Neither of the petitions for the four designated places contained the requisite number, i. e. one-third of the qualified voters. Sand. & H. Dig. secs. 943, 945; 15 L. R. A. 503-4. The names on the different petitions designating different places cannot be joined to give the requisite one-third. Sand. & H. Dig. secs. 943-5. No one place can be designated or put in nomination to be voted for, unless it is put in nomination by one-third…
1Opinion of the CourtBunn, C. J.
This is an appeal from the Little River circuit court, from a judgment therein rendered affirming the judgment of the county court on appeal therefrom, ordering an election on the subject of a removal of the county seat of that county.
There were, at the time of the presentations for removal under the statute, as shown by the return of the assessor made next before that time, to-wit: on the 15th August, 1894, 2030 voters in Little River county; and the. four petitions presented to the county for removal, in behalf of Millkin, Rocky Comfort, Ashdown and the Younse Place, contained 450, 125, 175…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hammett v. HodgesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Williamson v. RusseySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
- State ex rel. Kaufman v. MartinNevada Supreme Court · 1910