Perkins v. Holman
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Sevier Circuit Court, Hon. R. G-. Shaver Special Judge. (Argue upon the question of notice, and the merits generally, which questions are not gone into by the Court.) The petition of appellants does not show that they are interested parties. Under Sec. 81, Act Mch. 9, 1875, Acts 1874-5, p. 34, 35, &c., no one other than interested parties have a right to interfere to prevent annexation.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Sevier Circuit Court, Hon. R. G-. Shaver Special Judge. (Argue upon the question of notice, and the merits generally, which questions are not gone into by the Court.) The petition of appellants does not show that they are interested parties. Under Sec. 81, Act Mch. 9, 1875, Acts 1874-5, p. 34, 35, &c., no one other than interested parties have a right to interfere to prevent annexation. The petition does not show that the territory had been accepted by the town of Lockshurg. Petitioners have shown no right to complain. Powell on Appellate Proeeedceedings, p. 352, Sec. 10, and Acts…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Perkins and thirty-six other persons joined in a petition to the Circuit Court of Sevier County, praying that the proceedings and order of the County Court in the matter of the annexation of certain territory to the incorporated town of Locksburg might be brought up on certiorari and quashed for the want of the notice prescribed by law and for other causes. The County Judge and the Mayor, Aldermen and Recorder of the town were made defendants to this petition. After the proceedings and orders of the County Court had been certified up, the defendants filed a motion to quash the writ of…
2Cited by5 opinions
- City of Crossett v. AnthonySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1971
- State Ex Rel. Bennett v. BeckerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1934
- Palmer v. City of ConwayCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1980
- City of Crossett v. AnthonySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1971
- City of Crossett v. AnthonySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1971