Branch v. Gerlach
Decision Date | 04 April 1910 |
Citation | 127 S.W. 451,94 Ark. 378 |
Parties | BRANCH v. GERLACH |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; F. Guy Fulk Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Moore Smith & Moore and H. M. Trieber, for appellant.
The tax imposed is ultra vires and void. 30 Ark. 435. The courts will interfere to correct an unreasonable exercise or a mistaken application of the police power. 34 Ark. 603; 43 Ark. 82; 52 Ark. 201; 56 Ark. 370; 83 Ark. 351; 85 Ark. 590; 90 Ark. 127.
J. W Blackwood, for appellee.
The ordinance is not void. 26 Ark. 527; 13 N.Y. 427; 167 Mo. 554; 64 L.R.A. 679. The tax is a proper charge. Acts 1889, p. 18; 53 Ark. 300; 90 Ark. 5. The presumption is that the ordinance is just, and the construction of it is for the court. 52 Ark. 301; 70 Ark. 30; 43 Ark. 82; 41 Ark. 485; The ordinance was authorized by the Legislature. Kirby's Dig., § 5722 to 5728; 53 Ark. 302; 90 Ark. 5; 2 Dillon, Mun. Corp., § 805; 54 O. St. 506; 94 Minn. 121; 12 R. I. 310; 175 Mass. 242; 182 U.S. 398; 126 Mass. 431; 177 Mass. 39; 60 S.W. 116.
Appellant prays for a writ of mandamus to compel the city clerk of Argenta to issue permits for sewer connection with houses on his lots. He demanded a permit for one sewer connection with several houses on different lots in the same block, and the same was refused on the alleged ground that the ordinance of the city did not authorize a single permit for houses on more than one lot. The circuit court refused to grant the writ of mandamus, and an appeal was taken to this court.
The ordinance relied on to sustain the refusal to issue the single permit for connection with more than one lot reads as follows:
It is argued that the fee imposed by the ordinance is excessive and that the ordinance is void for that reason. No such question was involved in appellant's demand, nor in the trial below, and it can not be considered here. Appellant offered to pay the sum named in the ordinance for each connection, but demanded a single connection for more than one lot containing houses in a block. The only question raised, therefore, is whether or not the city had the right to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dressler v. Carpenter
...P. 745. 2. Issues not raised in the lower court will not be considered on appeal. 101. Ark. 95, 101; 96 Ark. 405, 409; 95 Ark. 593, 597; 94 Ark. 378; Id. 390, 392; 77 Ark. 27; 75 312, 317; 74 Ark. 88. The issues that the Wilson suits were fictitious, brought without authority and that there......
-
Vaughan v. Cooper
...validity of the contract in the lower court, that question can not be raised here for the first time. 96 Ark. 405; 95 Ark. 593; 94 Ark. 378; Id. 390; 87 Ark. 443; 83 Ark. 3. If the contention of appellee is true, his performance of the service was a sufficient consideration to support the c......
-
City of Mountain Home v. Ray
...of the ordinance, or of Act 132, cities have inherent power to compel obedience to sanitary and health regulations. In Branch v. Gerlach, 94 Ark. 378, 127 S.W. 451, it was held that an ordinance requiring a separate sewer connection for each lot was reasonable and that the city's right came......
-
Johns v. Rollison
...fee for satisfaction was not urged below, but, if so, appellant wavied it by promising to satisfy the mortgage. 56 A. 510; 90 Ark. 469; 94 Ark. 378. verdict is not excessive. Appellant wilfully refused to satisfy the mortage, and is therefore liable to appellee. 62 Ala. 302; 35 N.W. 284. OP......