Eureka Fire Hose Co. v. Furry
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court; James Coch- ' ran, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. This cause was heard below on an agreed statement of facts.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court; James Coch- ' ran, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. This cause was heard below on an agreed statement of facts. The agreed statement of facts is as follows: “It is agreed by'counsel for the above named parties that this cause be tried before this court, upon the pleadings, exhibits and the following agreed statement of facts: “1. That the facts as alleged in the complaint and answer, with all exhibits thereto and proofs of publication attached, are true. “2. That the city of Van Burén, Ark., was a duly organized city of the second class prior to the passage…
1Opinion of the CourtHumphreys, J.
(after stating the facts). (1) There can be no question as to the power of all municipalities to call in outstanding warrants for cancellation, reissuance or classification, or for any lawful purpose whatever. Under section 5508, Kirby’s Digest, this authority is given to any city or incorporated town in this State.
After purchasing the hose from the appellant herein and issuing a warrant therefor, the city of Van Burén called in its warrants. The call was made by the officers elected at a special election held in 1913, under a special law enacted by the Legislature of Arkansas, raising the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. CarrollSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1871
- Keith v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1887
- Cotten v. City of BentonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
3Cited by6 opinions
- Brown v. AndersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1946
- McClendon v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Bd. of Improvement of Gravette Waterworks Improvement District v. CarmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
- Tumbs v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986
- Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports1988
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.