Carson v. Road Improvement District No. 2
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Craig'bead Chancery Court, Western District; Archer Wheatley, Chancellor; Act 97, Acts 1919, does not authorize any change in plans and specifications, nor does the amendatory act of 1921 (Act 423, Acts 1921) enlarge the power of the board or the engineer. Sec. 27 of this latter act constitutes no part of the plans and specifications.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Craig'bead Chancery Court, Western District; Archer Wheatley, Chancellor; Act 97, Acts 1919, does not authorize any change in plans and specifications, nor does the amendatory act of 1921 (Act 423, Acts 1921) enlarge the power of the board or the engineer. Sec. 27 of this latter act constitutes no part of the plans and specifications. The word “plans” as used, necessarily means “plans and specifications” and is not limited to the narrower sense as outlined in 72 N. W. 550 and 18 N. W. 85. Commissioners have no authority except that expressly given or necessarily implied by the…
1Opinion of the Court
McCulloch, C.' J.
Appellant was the plaintiff below, and sought to enjoin the commissioners of appellee district from altering the plans and specifications, as approved by the county court, for the construction of the improvement and from proceeding to construct the improvement according to the altered plans and specifications.
The district was created under Act 97 of the session of 1919 (Road Acts 1919, vol. 1, page 174), which provides that, as soon as the board of commissioners “shall have formed its plans and secured an estimate of the cost of the aforesaid improvement, it shall file a copy…
2Cited by5 opinions
- O'Farrell v. County of SonomaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- House v. Road Improvement District No. 2Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Cowan v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
- Indian Bayou Drainage District v. WaltSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Higginbotham v. Road Improvement District No. 3Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1922