McRaven v. Clancy
| Decision Date | 02 November 1914 |
| Docket Number | 208 |
| Citation | 171 S.W. 88,115 Ark. 163 |
| Parties | MCRAVEN v. CLANCY |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Jno. E. Martineau, Chancellor reversed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
This suit was brought by a property owner within the limits of proposed improvement district No. 6, East Pulaski Heights Addition. The undisputed facts are that ten property owners of the proposed improvement district addressed to the city council of Pulaski Heights a petition praying that certain lots and blocks, including among others, lots 10, 11 and 12 in block 13 of the town of Pulaski Heights, be created into an improvement district. An ordinance was passed by the city council granting the prayer of the petition and designating the district as No. 6.
In the publication of said ordinance lot 11 in block 13 was omitted from the publication, although it was included in the original petition and in the ordinance.
The plaintiff below brought this suit to restrain the commissioners from proceeding to make the improvement contemplated by the ordinance, setting up the above facts. The commissioners, admitting that the above facts were true nevertheless claimed that the ordinance was valid for the following reasons:
The court, upon the above undisputed facts, found that the inclusion of lots 10 and 12, block 13, town of Pulaski Heights, in the publication of the ordinance was sufficient notice to the owners of lot 11 of the formation of said district, and that inasmuch as the owners of lot 11 signed a second petition praying for the improvement it was immaterial that lot 11 was not shown in the published ordinance, and that the statute relating to the publication of the ordinance had been sufficiently observed, and that the district had been validly organized, and entered a decree dismissing plaintiff's complaint for want of equity.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
L. P. Biggs, for appellant.
The omission of lot 11, block 13, from the publication of the ordinance destroyed the validity of the ordinance. 104 Ark. 298.
J. B. Webster, for appellees.
The statute requiring the publication of the ordinance creating the district was for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castle v. Sanders
...that said lot was necessarily included in the description by government subdivision. It is not like the cases of Voss v. Reyburn and McRaven v. Clancy, supra, the notice failed to include lands that were embraced in the petitions for, and ordinances creating, the districts. Under the form o......
-
American State Bank, Charleston, Ark. v. Street Imp. Dist. No. 3
... ... No. 14, supra ... [5]Cox v. Road District, 118 ... Ark. 119, 176 S.W. 676 ... [6]Holt v. Ring, 177 Ark ... 762, 9 S.W.2d 43 ... [7]McRaven v. Clancy, 115 ... Ark. 163, 171 S.W. 88. See, also: Voss v ... Reyburn, 104 Ark. 298, 148 S.W. 510; Norton ... v. Bacon, 113 Ark. 566, 168 S.W ... ...
-
American State Bank v. Street Imp. Dist. No. 3
...of the description, is complained of. The chancellor properly sustained appellee's demurrer to the complaint. Affirmed. 1. McRaven v. Clancy, 115 Ark. 163, 171 S.W. 88. See, also: Voss v. Reyburn, 104 Ark. 298, 148 S.W. 510; Norton v. Bacon, 113 Ark. 566, 168 S.W. 1088; Bell v. Phillips, 11......
-
Jarrett v. Baird
...owners that a charge is proposed to be made against their property. 116 Ark. 167; 130 Ark. 161; 103 Ark. 269; 108 Ark. 141; 104 Ark. 298; 115 Ark. 163. A variance between notice and plat filed is fatal. 113 Ark. 556. The case relied upon by appellant at 148 Ark. 629 is not in point. There a......