Spybuck Drainage District No. 1 v. St. Francis County
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from St. Francis Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge; The court had jurisdiction; it was error to dismiss. 92 Ark. 148; 89 Ark. 160; 100 Id. 63; 66 Id. 1; 72 Id. 101; 66 Id. 416. The latter case is conclusive. The court properly dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 65 Ark. 420; 65 Id. quoting from 9 Ark. Singer V. Berry; 5 Ark. 478; 9 Id. 375; 24 Id. 142; 31 Id. 725; 2 Cyc. 1025; 98 Va. 91; 36 La.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Francis Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge; The court had jurisdiction; it was error to dismiss. 92 Ark. 148; 89 Ark. 160; 100 Id. 63; 66 Id. 1; 72 Id. 101; 66 Id. 416. The latter case is conclusive. The court properly dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 65 Ark. 420; 65 Id. quoting from 9 Ark. Singer V. Berry; 5 Ark. 478; 9 Id. 375; 24 Id. 142; 31 Id. 725; 2 Cyc. 1025; 98 Va. 91; 36 La. Ann. 419; 2 Cyc. 1027; lb. 1028, 1037; Kirby’s Dig. § 1488; 21 Ark. 94; 69 Id. 51; 92 Id. 148. See, also, In re, 24 Ark. 282; 25 Id. 275; 42 Id. 183. This is a collateral attack on…
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
On the 5th day of July, 1910, W. E. Williams, collector of St. Francis County and the Spybuck Drainage District No. 1, filed in the county court of St. Francis County a demand against the county in the sum of $1,073.81, alleging said sum to be due by the county to the Spybuck Drainage District by reason of assessments against the county in favor of the district. The county court after due consideration, disallowed the claim for the reason that no benefit was derived by the county from the district.
The record of the judgment, shows that the drainage district excepted to the ruling of the court…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Walker v. NollSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Wulff v. DavisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
3Cited by2 opinions
- Thomas v. ThomasSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- Huffman v. SudburySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915