White v. Arkansas & Missouri Highway District
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery-Court,- J..E. Martinecm, Chancellor; 1. Acts 23, 25 and 356, of the Special Session of 1920, as also act 82 of 1919, are void.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery-Court,- J..E. Martinecm, Chancellor; 1. Acts 23, 25 and 356, of the Special Session of 1920, as also act 82 of 1919, are void. The proposed improvement does not constitute a single local inprovement, and the unity of the district is destroyed by these acts, and they are void. 50 Ark. 116, 129; 89 Id. 513-16. The legislative determination that the improvement is a single one and local in its nature is not conclusive in this case. 130 Ark. 307. 2. The cost will exceed the limits allowed hy law. 3. All these acts invade the jurisdiction of the county court. Article…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Appellant is a landowner in the Arkansas and Missouri Highway District in Pulaski County, and seeks by this suit to enjoin the commissioners of that district from constructing certain lateral roads authorized by the terms of acts 23, 25 and 356 of the Special Session of the General Assembly of 1920. The original district was created by Act No. 82 passed at the regular 1919 session, and the contention is made that the unity of the district is destroyed by acts 23, 25 and 356, and that these acts are therefore void.
There were other acts amending act 82, but we need not consider them here, as…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Easley v. PattersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
- Van Dyke v. MackSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
3Cited by6 opinions
- Arkansas Foundry Co. v. StanleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- Massey v. Arkansas & Missouri Highway DistrictSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
- Poe v. Street Improvement District No. 340Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Cooper v. HoganSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
- Filbert v. Arkansas & Missouri Highway Dist.District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1924
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.