Legal Opinion
Condon v. City of Eureka Springs
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas
Decided February 10, 1905PublishedCited by 2 opinions
At Raw.
1Opinion of the Court
ROGERS, District Judge.
Plaintiff’s action is based on certain warrants, commonly called “city scrip,” of the city of Eureka Springs, Ark., all issued prior to the 27th of March, 1903. The city defends on two grounds: (1) The statute of limitations of five years; (2) that on the 3d of November, 1893, by its council, it made an order calling in for cancellation and classification under the act of March 27, 1893 (Laws 1893, p. 169), all the warrants of said city, and fixed a day on which said warrants should be filed—at 12 o’clock m. of March 15, 1894; that said order was published in accordance…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Fletcher v. PeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
- Campbell v. HoltSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- City of Fort Smith v. McKibbinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1883
- Percy v. CockrillCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1893
- Helena v. HornorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1893
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Stitz v. City of Eureka SpringsDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1998
- Ballard-Hassett Co. v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1928