Coffman v. St. Francis Drainage District
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Greene Chancery Court; B. D. Robertson, Chancellor; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. The General Assembly of 1905 created a levee and draináge district, called the St. Francis Drainage District, in Clay and Greene counties, the purpose’of said district being to maintain the levee then in existence on the west shore of the St. Francis River, and to construct such other levees on said shore line as in the opinion of the board of directors should be deemed proper and…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Greene Chancery Court; B. D. Robertson, Chancellor; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. The General Assembly of 1905 created a levee and draináge district, called the St. Francis Drainage District, in Clay and Greene counties, the purpose’of said district being to maintain the levee then in existence on the west shore of the St. Francis River, and to construct such other levees on said shore line as in the opinion of the board of directors should be deemed proper and necessary, and for the purpose of constructing á drain or ditch in said territory, which was specifically designated. Á board…
1Opinion of the Court
Him,, C. J.,
(after stating the facts.) In Parsons v. District of Columbia, 170 U. S. 45, the following excerpt from Cooley on Taxation was approved by the court:
T. The major part of the cost of a local work is sometimes collected by general tax, while a smaller portion is levied upon the estates specially benefited.
“2. The major part is sometimes assessed on estates benefited, while the general public is taxed a smaller portion in consideration of a smaller participation in the. benefits.
“3. The whole cost in -other cases is levied on lands in the immediate vicinity of the work.
“In a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Norwood v. BakerSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Parsons v. District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Wight v. DavidsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Cass Farm Co. v. DetroitSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Heinemann v. SweattSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- Moore v. Board of DirectorsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Board of Improvement District No. 5 v. OffenhauserSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Board of Directors of Levee District No. 2Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co. v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.