McDonnell v. Improvement District No. 145
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; John B. Martineau, Chancellor; 1. Appellants are entitled to .relief against the proposed cost of the improvement.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; John B. Martineau, Chancellor; 1. Appellants are entitled to .relief against the proposed cost of the improvement. It clearly exceeds 20 percentum of the value of the real property in the district as shown by the last assessment, in violation of the statute; and the fact that donations from th'é city and county are promised which may reduce the total amount to a sum within, or not in excess of, the 20 per cent, limit, does not legalize the proposed cost, because those promises are nonenforceable — the county and city are in no wise legally bound to make…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
Appellants owned real estate within the limits of an Improvement district in the city of Little Rock, organized for the purpose of street paving, and they instituted this action in the chancery court of Pulaski County against said improvement district, attacking the validity of its organization and the assessments levied, and seeking to restrain further proceedings thereunder. Answer was filed*and proof taken, and on final hearing of the cause the chancellor dismissed the complaint for want of equity.
1. The validity of the organization is challenged on the ground that three petitions were…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Fitzgerald v. WalkerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
3Cited by27 opinions
- Tappan v. Helena Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937
- People Ex Rel. Bagshaw v. ThompsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- Bennett v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Bank of Commerce v. HuddlestonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
- City of Paris v. Street Improvement District No. 2Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1943
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.