Matthews v. Kimball
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court. Edward B. Peirce, Special Chancellor. OPINION OE SPECIAL CHANCELLOR. These cases were consolidated, and have been submitted together. It is agreed that the issues in each case shall be identical, and that any amendment to the pleadings necessary to effectuate this agreement shall be treated and considered as made. The cases were submitted upon the pleadings and an agreed statement of facts.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court. Edward B. Peirce, Special Chancellor. OPINION OE SPECIAL CHANCELLOR. These cases were consolidated, and have been submitted together. It is agreed that the issues in each case shall be identical, and that any amendment to the pleadings necessary to effectuate this agreement shall be treated and considered as made. The cases were submitted upon the pleadings and an agreed statement of facts. It appears that on the 24th day of May, 1893, ten resident owners of real property in the city of Little Rock, and within the district to be affected, petitioned the…
1Dissent
Biddick, J.,
(dissenting.) If the decision of this case depended on my personal feeling in the matter, 1 should favor the appellee, for I consider the park to be an ornament to the city, and should like to see it improved. But a consideration of the case has convinced me that the assessment levied against the lots of the appellant should not be sustained, for the reason that the lots neither adjoin nor are adjacent to the park which it is proposed to improve.
A provision of our state constitution specially authorizes assessments on real property for local improvements in towns and cities, but…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Norwood v. BakerSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- City of Burlington v. GilbertSupreme Court of Iowa · 1871
- Little Rock v. KatzensteinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1889
- In the Matter of WardNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Miller v. MannSupreme Court of Vermont · 1882