Nakdimen v. Fort Smith & Van Buren Bridge District
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Chancery Court; W. A. Falconer, Chancellor; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. I. H. Nakdimen instituted this action in the chancery court against the Fort Smith & Van Burén District and the Fort Smith Light & Traction Company to cancel and set aside a contract made by the commissioners of the bridge 'district with the Fort Smith Light & Traction Company. The record in the case is very voluminous and we do not deem it necessary to abstract it at length.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sebastian Chancery Court; W. A. Falconer, Chancellor; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. I. H. Nakdimen instituted this action in the chancery court against the Fort Smith & Van Burén District and the Fort Smith Light & Traction Company to cancel and set aside a contract made by the commissioners of the bridge 'district with the Fort Smith Light & Traction Company. The record in the case is very voluminous and we do not deem it necessary to abstract it at length. Counsel for the bridge district has made a clear and consecutive statement of the case and we think that that statement is…
1Opinion of the Court
Hast, J.,
(after stating the facts). The constitutionality of the act under which the bridge in question in this case was constructed was sustained in the case of Shibley et al. v. The Fort Smith & Van Buren District, 96 Ark. 410. We held in effect in that case that the benefits derived from the construction of the bridge were local in their character, and that the purpose and effect of the building of the bridge was to improve the particular locality embraced within the limits of the improvement district, and that the costs might properly be assessed against the locality benefited. In the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Linden Land Co. v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1900
- Shibley v. Fort SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Fitzgerald v. WalkerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
- Garland v. Board of RevenueSupreme Court of Alabama · 1888
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Board of Directors of Levee District No. 2Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Arkansas State Highway Commission v. PartainSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936
- Southern New England Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1957
- City of Clovis v. Southwestern Public Service Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1945
- Skillern v. White River Levee DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
- Fort Smith & Van Buren District v. KiddSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.