Baird v. Street Paving Improvement District No. 1
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Conway Chancery Court; Jordan Sellers, Chancellor; The description of the improvement to be made, all of which are set out in the complaint, is too indefinite and uncertain, hence void, and the court erred in sustaining defendant’s demurrer to the complaint. 118 Ark. 119; 115 Id. 594; 59 Id. 344; 116 Id. 167; 130 Id. 44. There is no uncertainty of description in the contemplated improvements.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Conway Chancery Court; Jordan Sellers, Chancellor; The description of the improvement to be made, all of which are set out in the complaint, is too indefinite and uncertain, hence void, and the court erred in sustaining defendant’s demurrer to the complaint. 118 Ark. 119; 115 Id. 594; 59 Id. 344; 116 Id. 167; 130 Id. 44. There is no uncertainty of description in the contemplated improvements. They are correctly and fully enumerated, and the descriptions sufficient, and the court properly sustained appellee’s demurrer. 105 Ark. 68; 59 Id. 344; 103 Id. 269; 97 Id. 334. See, also, 31…
1Opinion of the CourtHumphreys, J.
This is an appeal from a decree of the Conway Chancery Court, sustaining the sufficiency of the proceedings establishing Street Paving Improvement District No. 1 of Morrilton, Arkansas.
Appellant, a property owner of the district, attacked the validity thereof on the ground that the petitions for the organization of, and the ordinances creating and establishing the district, failed to certainly and definitely describe the improvements to be made.
The preliminary petition, required by section 5649 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest, described the improvements contemplated, as follows: “The said…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Board of Improvement of Paving District No. 7 v. BrunSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Bottrell v. HollipeterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
3Cited by1 opinion
- Conway v. Commissioners of Board of Improvement District No. 20Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1924