Pine Bluff Water & Light Co. v. Sewer District
| Decision Date | 16 May 1891 |
| Citation | 19 S.W. 576,56 Ark. 205 |
| Parties | PINE BLUFF WATER & LIGHT Co. v. SEWER DISTRICT |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
APPEAL from Jefferson Circuit Court, JOHN M. ELLIOTT, Judge.
Judgment affirmed.
U. M. & G. B. Rose and Bell & Bridges for appellant.
The water was not furnished to the city, but to the sewer commissioners. The sewers had not been turned over to the city. The commissioners could not claim the benefit of a contract to which they were not parties. 1 Whart. Cont. sec. 507; 2 id. sec. 784.
N. T. While for appellee.
Appellant agreed with the city to furnish water for flushing sewers, and has received pay for that service in the rent charged for fire hydrants. It does not matter whether the water was furnished by flush-tanks or through hose and a fire nozzle, so long as no additional burden was imposed. Am. & E. Enc. Law, 3 vol. p. 863 and notes; 1 Parsons on Cont. 466-7-8; 49 Ark. 464; 31 id. 411; 31 gal. 155; 46 id. 136.
BATTLE, J. Hemingway, J., did not sit in this case.
This was an action instituted by the Pine Bluff Water & Light Company against Sewer District No. 1, in the city of Pine Bluff, and the commissioners of the district, to recover the sum of $ 900 for water furnished the district for flushing sewers. The district sued was organized about the month of November, 1888, for the purpose of constructing sewers. Its object and the authority of its board of improvement, or commissioners, were limited to the construction of sewers and paying for the same. The board had no authority to enter into any contract, except such as were in the scope of said authority. When the sewers, were completed, they became subject to the control of the city of Pine Bluff, and the board of the sewer district no longer had lawful control over them. They had no authority to contract or bind themselves as a board or the sewer district for water furnished for flushing the sewers in the district. Mansfield's Digest, §§ 825, 895; Martin v. Hilb, 53 Ark. 300, 14 S.W. 94.
Judgment affirmed.
Hemingway, J., did not sit in this case.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matthews v. Kimball
...be maintained out of the general revenue. An assessment for "maintaining" the park after it is once made cannot be enforced. 59 Ark. 360; 56 Ark. 205; 50 Ark. 116, 132; Ark. 79; 98 F. 369; 92 Tex. 685. The act of March 22, 1881, and the ordinance thereunder, are void because, in requiring t......
-
Inland Construction Co. v. Rector
...Id. 252. See 11 Ark. 705-710. 6. The finding of the engineer is not conclusive. 48 Ark. 522; 100 Id. 284-295; 185 S.W. 474; 9 C. J. 755; 56 Ark. 205; 19 N.J.Eq. 376; 100 Ark. 166; 87 Id. 120; Id. 110. 7. The sureties were not discharged and the damages are not excessive. 9 C. J. 818; 97 Ark......
-
Moore v. North College Avenue Improvement District No. 1
...through the road commissioners, at the time the street improvement district was organized, and still remains so vested. 97 Ark. 318, 321; 56 Ark. 205. Therefore the city council had no control or over the subject-matter, and was without authority to create the district. Moreover, the contro......
-
Jones v. Sewer Improvement District No. 3 of Rogers
... ... plant, or the discharge of water on a party's land, and ... it may be recalled. 41 Am. St. 367; 42 Id ... completed, they become subject to the control of the city ... Pine Bluff Water Co. v. Sewer District, 56 ... Ark. 205, 19 S.W. 576; City of ... ...