Ragon v. Beakley
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; John E. Martineem, Chancellor; The chancellor erred in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the complaint because the county court had no authority to omit the lands mentioned in the petition, notice and engineer’s report. Act 279, Acts 1909, p. 829; act 221, Acts 1911, p. 193; 125 Ark. 388; 132 Id. 328. The chancellor was correct in sustaining the demurrer, as the complaint did not state facts to constitute a cause of action.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; John E. Martineem, Chancellor; The chancellor erred in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the complaint because the county court had no authority to omit the lands mentioned in the petition, notice and engineer’s report. Act 279, Acts 1909, p. 829; act 221, Acts 1911, p. 193; 125 Ark. 388; 132 Id. 328. The chancellor was correct in sustaining the demurrer, as the complaint did not state facts to constitute a cause of action. No lands are included in the order creating the district that are not plainly described in the original action, published notice…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Appellant is a property owner in the Clear Creek Drainage District of Pulaski County, Arkansas, and seeks by this suit to enjoin the commissioners of the district from proceeding further with the improvement. As ground for this action, he alleges that the order establishing the district is void because certain lands embraced in the original petition of the property owners for the- establishment of the district, and in the report of the preliminary survey by the engineer, and in the published notice of the hearing on the establishment of the district, were, excluded from the district as…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Allen v. Tri-County Watershed Imp. DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1968