State v. Leatherman
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Information in the nature of the writ of Quo Warranto. 1. It was competent under Art 7, Bee. —, Const. 1868, for the Legislature to impose on County Courts the duty of ascertaining the facts authorizing the assumption of corporate powers, &c.
Read the full summary
Information in the nature of the writ of Quo Warranto. 1. It was competent under Art 7, Bee. —, Const. 1868, for the Legislature to impose on County Courts the duty of ascertaining the facts authorizing the assumption of corporate powers, &c. Afc the time Arkansas City attempted to incorporate, the •Circuit Court had been deprived of all jurisdiction, the act of 1868 having been repealed by act of April, 1869. State v. Jennings, 27 Arh., 419. 2. The act of March, 1875, perpetuates only such towns ••as had an actual legal existence under former laws. Arkan•sas City never existed as an…
1Opinion of the CourtEakin, J.
i. quo ¥aeiustof sup r e m e
This case invokes the original jurisdiction of this court, in one of the cases provided for, by the 5th section of Art. VII of the Constitution. It is an x 1 lion by the Attorney General in the nature of an information on behalf of the State, against the Mayor, Aldermen and Recorder of the town of “Arkansas City” to test the legal existence of the corporation ; substantially it is an applicatian for a writ of quo warranto. Notwithstanding some earlier decisions to the contrary, it had long before the adoption of the Constitution of 1874, been the practice of this…
2Cited by37 opinions
- State ex rel. West v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1896
- Attorney General v. City of MethuenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
- State ex rel. Brown v. Town of WestportSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- State ex rel. McGee v. GardnerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1893
- Attorney General v. SullivanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.