Dickinson v. Reeder
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Howard Chancery Court, James D. Shaver, Chancellor; The act creating the district is unconstitutional and void, as it attempts to confer power' on the commissioners to maintain and repair public roads.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Howard Chancery Court, James D. Shaver, Chancellor; The act creating the district is unconstitutional and void, as it attempts to confer power' on the commissioners to maintain and repair public roads. Const., art. 7, § 28; 89 Ark. 516. It takes jurisdiction from the county court which has exclusive control over public roads. 1. The act is not void because it provides for the maintaining of the road after completion. 213 S. W. 762; 213 Id. 882, 255; 16. 633; 102 Ark. 306; 95 Id. 496; 71 Ark. 27; 78 Id. 584; 52 Id. 332. 2. If only a part of the act is unconstitutional that only…
1DissentHart, J.
As said by Judge Sharswood, who was not only one of the greatest American judges, but also an eminent law writer, having edited many English law books, including Blackstone’s Commentaries: “We must say at some time to this tide of special taxation, thus far shalt thou go and no further. To our own decisions, as far as they have gone, we mean to adhere, but we are now asked to take a step much in advance of them. This we would not be justified by the principles of the Constitution in doing.” Hammett v. Philadelphia, 65 Pa. 146.
In the majority opinion there is a quotation from Road Improvement…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hammett v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1869
- Washington AvenueSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
- Road Improvement District No. 1 v. GloverSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Sallee v. DaltonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
- Sanderson v. TexarkanaSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.