Hudson v. Simonson
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, J.,
(after, stating the facts). The Legislature has provided for the assessment of benefits upon the land in drainage districts, and the power of determining these benefits is vested in the commissioners. The statute also provides the remedy for the landowners in cases of unequal, irregular or illegal assessments.
Under § 3613 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest the commissioners are made the assessors of benefits and damages. Under § 3615 it is their duty to deposit the assessment with the county clerk, where it shall be kept and preserved as a public record. The section provides that the county…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- House v. Road Improvement District No. 2Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Road Improvement Districts 1, 2 & 3 v. CrarySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Chapman & Dewey Land Co. v. Osceola & Little River Road Improvement District No. 1Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Wimberly v. Road Improvement District No. 7Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- McCord v. WelchSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
3Cited by7 opinions
- Seubold v. Fort Smith Special School DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1951
- Drainage Dist. No. 2 of Crittenden County v. Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Co. of St. LouisCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1934
- Texarkana Special School District v. Ritchie Grocer Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
- Adams v. Subdrainage District No. 3Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
- Ready v. Ozan Investment CompanySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1935
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.