Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Waterworks Improvement District No. 1
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Drew Chancery Court; Zachariah T. Wood, Chancellor; 1. The assessment was made without reference to benefits to be received. 86 Ark. 1; 119 Id. 128; 55 N. Y. 604; 48 L. R. A. 851; 127 Ark. 310; 119 Id. 294; 89 Id. 513; 117 Id. 31; 98 Id. 543; 119 Id. 178; 125 Id. 425. 2. The assessment is excessive. Bush v. Branson, U. S. Ct.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Drew Chancery Court; Zachariah T. Wood, Chancellor; 1. The assessment was made without reference to benefits to be received. 86 Ark. 1; 119 Id. 128; 55 N. Y. 604; 48 L. R. A. 851; 127 Ark. 310; 119 Id. 294; 89 Id. 513; 117 Id. 31; 98 Id. 543; 119 Id. 178; 125 Id. 425. 2. The assessment is excessive. Bush v. Branson, U. S. Ct. App., Feb. 16, 1918. The finding of the court is not conclusive. 180 Fed. 92, and others. 3. The district was never legally organized for the reason that no plans nor estimate of cost were made or reported to the conncil. Kirby & Castle’s Digest, § 6836; 106…
1Opinion of the CourtHumphreys, J.
Appellant instituted suit against appellees on the 13th day of September, 1913, in the Drew chancery court assailing the organization and assessment of benefits of Waterworks Improvement District No. 1, in Tillar, Arkansas, alleging that a majority in value of the property owners did not petition the city council for the district; that the board of commissioners did not furnish the council with plans for and estimates of the cost of the improvement; that the assessment of the property in the district was not based on benefits to the property; that the assessment against appellant’s property…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Turner v. AdamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
- Ingram v. ThamesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- Conway v. Commissioners of Board of Improvement District No. 20Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1924