Legal Opinion

Lesser-Goldman Cotton Co. v. Cache River Drainage District

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 23, 1927PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). Appellants only insist here that no authority is granted by % 3630 of C. & M. Digest to extend the ditches or improvement, the same having been completed, and that the court could not authorize it done under the provisions of § 3625 of the statutes, which only permit alteration of ’the plans for the ditches or drains before the completion of the project; and that no authority is given by law for an issuance of bonds or levying taxes upon assessment of benefits already made, the law not authorizing the further issuance of bonds to make new or additional…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. McKean McNeal v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922
  2. Indian Bayou Drainage District v. WaltSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
  3. Bayou Meto Drainage District v. IngramSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
  4. Clay v. EnglandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Beaver Bayou Drainage District v. Lee-Phillips Drainage DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1953
  2. Lee-Phillips Drainage District v. Beaver Bayou Drainage DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1956
  3. Park Corp. of Arkansas v. Tri-County Drainage DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1956
  4. Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API