Pearson v. Quinn
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Miller Circuit Court; W. II. Arnold, Special Judge; A proceeding under the three-mile liquor law is in the nature of an election, and not in the nature of a suit between parties. 40 Ark. '290; 104 Ark. 436; 70 Ark. 178; 51 Ark. 164. There is no expressed authority rendering judgment against remonstrants under the three-mile law.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Miller Circuit Court; W. II. Arnold, Special Judge; A proceeding under the three-mile liquor law is in the nature of an election, and not in the nature of a suit between parties. 40 Ark. '290; 104 Ark. 436; 70 Ark. 178; 51 Ark. 164. There is no expressed authority rendering judgment against remonstrants under the three-mile law. Kirby’s Dig. § § 5128-5132; 95 Ark. 83. The right -to recover costs rests upon statute only, it did not exist at common law, supra; 60 Ark. 194; 106 Ark. 296; 84 Ark. 188; 108 Ark. 301. The right of the prevailing party to judgment for costs in this class…
1DissentMcCulloch, C. J.
The statute under which this proceeding was begun and prosecuted to a conclusion contains no authority for the adjudication of costs. The statute merely provides that the county court may, upon a petition of a majority of the adult inhabitants residing within three miles of any school house, etc., make .an order prohibiting the sale of intoxicants of any kind within that radius for a period of two years, “and until upon .a petition of a majority of the adult inhabitants of such territory the court shall make an order nullifying and revoking said former order.” Kirby’s Digest, sec. 5129. TMs…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Williams v. CitizensSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1883
- Wilson v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1892
- Buchanan v. ParhamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Wilson v. FussellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
- Letchworth v. FlinnSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.