Johnson v. Hamlen
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; J. E. Mar-tineau, Chancellor; The two districts constitute only a single district, and the double assessment is in direct violation of the law and void. The boundaries of the two districts are coterminous and identical. 105 Ark. 65. The improvement district undertaken exceeds the 20 per cent, cost and is invalid.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; J. E. Mar-tineau, Chancellor; The two districts constitute only a single district, and the double assessment is in direct violation of the law and void. The boundaries of the two districts are coterminous and identical. 105 Ark. 65. The improvement district undertaken exceeds the 20 per cent, cost and is invalid. C. & M. Digest, § 5666; 135 Ark. 315; 115 Id. 95. The grading, curbing, guttering and paving are for one improvement district, and there is no authority under our law for splitting the district into two districts, and district 275 is void because…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
The complaint in this cause contained the following allegations: That appellees constituted the board of improvement for Street Improvement Districts Nos, 274 and 275 of Little Bock; and that appellants, who were the plaintiffs below, are owners of real property within the boundaries of each of said districts. That said district No. 274 was created for the purpose of grading, draining, curbing and guttering certain streets, more particularly described in the ordinance creating same. That district No. 275 was established on the same day for the purpose of paving the same streets. That the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Doe ex dem. Phillips' Heirs v. PorterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1840
- Harrell v. HillSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1857
- Scott v. Dunkel Box & Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Paschal v. SwepstonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- Board of Improvement of Paving District No. 7 v. BrunSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bostick v. PernotSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
- Linder v. Street Improvement District No. 9Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1955
- Price v. Street Improvement District No. 335Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- Wells v. St. Imp. Dist. No. 31, N. Little RockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925