Paving District v. Sisters of Mercy
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Chancery Court; /. Virgil Bourland, Chancellor; These two suits were brought by the Sisters of Mercy of the Female Academy of Fort Smith, Arkansas, against the Board of Improvement of Paving District No. 5 of Fort Smith, and against the Board of Improvement of Sewer District No. 2 of Fort Smith. The facts are stated in the opinion. The terms “tax” and “taxation” do not include assessments for local improvements.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sebastian Chancery Court; /. Virgil Bourland, Chancellor; These two suits were brought by the Sisters of Mercy of the Female Academy of Fort Smith, Arkansas, against the Board of Improvement of Paving District No. 5 of Fort Smith, and against the Board of Improvement of Sewer District No. 2 of Fort Smith. The facts are stated in the opinion. The terms “tax” and “taxation” do not include assessments for local improvements. Hamilton on Special Assessments, § § 21-39; 21 Ark. 40; 65 Ark. 498. The act (§ 3 of act approved December 20, i860) under which appellee claims exemption in…
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
These two suits were brought to enjoin the collection of assessments for local improvements on the ground that the property involved is exempt by reason of a private statute. The court below held that the statute applied to assessments for local improvements, and enjoined the collection in each case.. An appeal was taken in each case.
The same point being involved in the two cases, they will be considered together.
Appellee was incorporated by private act, approved December 20, i860. The exemption claimed is contained, in section three of the act, which is as follows:
“Section 3. Ten acres of…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Illinois Central Railroad v. DecaturSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- City of Bridgeport v. New York & New Haven RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1869
- Emery v. San Francisco Gas Co.California Supreme Court · 1865
- Farrar v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- President of Harvard College v. Board of AldermenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Commissioners of Road Improvement District No. 2 v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Shibley v. Fort SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Rainwater v. HaynesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1968
- In re Dexter-Greenfield Drainage Dist.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1915
- Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Izard County Highway Improvement District No. 1.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.