Paschal v. Swepston
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Crittenden Chancery Court; Charles D. Frierson, Chancellor; The statute, Act No. 279, Acts 1909, § 1, under which the district was organized, does not prescribe the terms of the notice; but, although not expressly so stated, it is necessarily implied that the notice shall correctly state the boundaries of the district, to the end that persons owning land in the district may be put on notice. 113 Ark. 566. The object of such notice is to enable the property owners…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Crittenden Chancery Court; Charles D. Frierson, Chancellor; The statute, Act No. 279, Acts 1909, § 1, under which the district was organized, does not prescribe the terms of the notice; but, although not expressly so stated, it is necessarily implied that the notice shall correctly state the boundaries of the district, to the end that persons owning land in the district may be put on notice. 113 Ark. 566. The object of such notice is to enable the property owners included in the district to easily ascertain what property is included in the district. 104 Ark. 298-302; 115 Ark. 163.…
1Opinion of the CourtKirby, J.
TMs case presents la single question of law for the consideration of the court.
The surveyor appointed by the county judge of Crittenden County to make a preliminary survey of certain territory for the purpose of forming a drainage district filed his ¡map and report showing the boundaries of said district. Said district began at the northwest corner of section 9, township 8 north, range 6 east, and the last three calls in the north boundary line were as follows:
“Thence west four and three-quarters of a anile to the east' bank of Big Creek; thence in a southwesterly di•rection along the east,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Central Irrigation District v. De LappeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- McRaven v. ClancySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- Voss v. ReyburnSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Norton v. BaconSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
3Cited by15 opinions
- Heinemann v. SweattSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Cox v. Drainage District No. 27, Craighead CountySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1945
- Gregg v. Road Improvement District No. 2Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- Meyer v. Board of Improvement of Paving District No. 3Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- Hughes v. YatesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1958
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.