Wright v. Badders
| Decision Date | 30 June 1930 |
| Docket Number | 77 |
| Parties | WRIGHT v. BADDERS |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Cleburne Circuit Court; J. F. Koone, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Miller & Yingling, for appellant.
Certain residents of Cleburne County presented a petition pursuant to the provisions of act 193 of 1929 to the county court asking that certain territory described therein be annexed to and made a part of the existing stock law district in that county, and, upon the order being made, appellees asked to be made parties and filed an affidavit and prayed an appeal to the circuit court, where, upon the trial by the court upon an agreed statement of facts, it was held that the county court was without jurisdiction to grant the petition for annexation of the territory to the stock law district, and reversed and set aside the judgment and dismissed the petition, from which judgment comes this appeal.
The petition was filed pursuant to the provisions of act 193 of 1929 correctly describing the territory in Piney township, which is contiguous to and adjoining Cadron, Clayton and Heber townships of Cleburne County, the petitioners constituting a majority of the qualified electors residing in the described territory. Before the filing of the petition the townships of Cadron, Clayton and Heber had been created into a stock law district in conformity with the statute (§§ 321-332, C. & M. Digest, and amendments thereto), and neither Cadron, Clayton or Heber township was created into or incorporated into a stock law district by virtue of any special act of the Legislature and the majority of the area of Cleburne County had not been created or incorporated into a stock law district or districts under the general statutes or any special act of the General Assembly and no part of said county had been incorporated into stock law districts in any other manner than as provided in said statutes (§§ 321-332, C. & M. Digest, and the statutes amendatory thereof).
Appellants insist that the court erred in its construction of the statute in holding the county court was without authority to make the order of annexation. It is not contended that any of the districts to which the territory was sought to be annexed was created by a special act of the Legislature, and it was conceded that all were created by order of the county court under the provisions of the statutes (said §§ 321-331, C. & M. Digest).
Act 205 of 1927 amends § 321, C. & M. Digest, and the act No 427 of the Legislature of 1921, providing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ingle v. Board of County Com'rs of Latimer County
...under their limited statutory authority had no jurisdiction to entertain such petition and order an election thereon. Wright v. Badders, 181 Ark. 1124, 29 S.W.2d 671; Yates v. Walker County Commission, 230 Ala. 361, 161 So. The County Commissioners in exercising statutory powers have a limi......
-
Johnson v. Simpson
... ... unlawful ... Appellant ... calls attention to the case of Smith v ... Plant, 179 Ark. 1024, 19 S.W.2d 1022, and ... Wright v. Badders, 181 Ark. 1124, 29 S.W.2d ... 671, and argues that these cases hold that the acts now ... involved are valid. The question of whether ... ...
-
Holt v. Howard
...Such was the holding of our court in Johnson v. Simpson, 185 Ark. 1074, 51 S.W.2d 233. The conclusion reached in the case of Wright v. Badders is correct; since the opinion used the expression "majority of the area of the county," it may possibly be susceptible of appellees' contention; so ......
- Mckim v. Highway Iron Products Company