{
  "id": 1464565,
  "name": "McLemore v. Heriot",
  "name_abbreviation": "McLemore v. Heriot",
  "decision_date": "1949-10-10",
  "docket_number": "4-8980",
  "first_page": "779",
  "last_page": "781",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "215 Ark. 779"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "223 S.W.2d 502"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "197 S. W. 27",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 Ark. 161",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8718493
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/130/0161-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 S. W. 88",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 Ark. 167",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 316,
    "char_count": 3757,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.522,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05486478169190559
    },
    "sha256": "f1f64d96207189bcb6fe414fa1a2000e373265eb3c272868a9504b74534a6b06",
    "simhash": "1:2401f7c109ea19e4",
    "word_count": 664
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:42:13.131733+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mr. Justice Frank G.. Smith concurs."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "McLemore v. Heriot."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Griffin Smith, Chief Justice.\nStreet Improvement District No. 567 was formed in Little Rock in order that certain paving might be done. The proceeding resulting in this appeal originated with a complaint by taxpayers who alleged invalidity of the organization because two lots in Cedar Heights Addition were not included. A demurrer to the answer was overruled, hence the record alone is before us.\nThe controversy is based upon appellant\u2019s contention that failure to list for assessment purposes two tracts lying immediately north of West Twentieth Street was a jurisdictional error not susceptible of correction.\nBlock Pour of Cedar Heights Addition was sought to be brought in under the designation,' \u201cLots Pour to Nine, inclusive, Block Pour, all in Cedar Heights Addition to the City of Little Rock.\u201d The lots are in two tiers, No. 1 being the northeast, followed on the south by 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The second tier lies immediately west, with Lot 12 on the north. It will be seen that Lots 6 and 7 adjoin 5 and 8 on the south. -\nIt is alleged that \u201ca strip of ground 23 feet wide marked \u2018B \u2019 lies immediately south of Lot 6,\u201d and that the same condition exists as to Lot 7, the designation there being \u201cA.\u201d But the complaint goes further and says that \u201c. . . south of Lot 7 in said Block 4 the strip of land marked \u2018A\u2019 is to be found.\u201d Appellant thinks that the District\u2019s failure to mention Lots \u201cA\u201d and \u201cB\u201d requires an injunction against the proposed bond issue.\nIn an effort to cure the defect, if such existed, taxpayers favoring the District proceeded under Act 661 of 1919, Pope\u2019s Digest, \u00a7\u00a7 7372-77, 2 Ark. Stats. 20-1101, et seq., and procured from Pulaski County Court a judgment of correction. It is urged that the Act conferring this power upon County Courts is unconstitutional when applied to municipal improvement districts; or, if the Act per se be valid, the order affecting District 567 was void because it dealt with an indispensable prerequisite. McRaven v. Clancy, 115 Ark. 167, 171 S. W. 88.\nWe do not find it necessary to discuss either of these matters. Ownership of the property in question is not shown. In the absence of proof touching initial formation of Block Pour, the Court could have found that these 23-foot \u201cstrips of ground\u201d were parts of Lots 6 and 7. The only indications of severance are dotted lines running east and west. Bnt it naay be observed that a similar line is drawn across Lot 5, and there is no contention that the cut-off area was not a part of Lot 5. It is possible\u2014 even probable \u2014 that the dotted lines are arbitrary designations showing where the regular 50-foot lots would end, and that Lots 6 and 7, instead of being 50 feet wide, are 73 feet. We do not know that they would not be appropriately assessed, and the only question is whether the two 23-ft. strips are within the District. Not only does appellee\u2019s answer assert that one of the strips is \u201cimmediately south of Lot 6 in said Bloch Four,\u201d but the demurrer admits this to be true. Since the two strips are similarly situated, one could not be within the block, and the other beyond it.\nThe case is not like Riddle v. Ballew, 130 Ark. 161, 197 S. W. 27, where the ordinance establishing a local improvement district omitted property included in the petitions. It was there said that it was for the property owners, and not the council, to determine what descriptions should be contained in the District. But in the case at bar the disputed area was in Block Four, and it is fairly inferable that each 23-ft. strip is a part of the parent lot.\nAffirmed.\nMr. Justice Frank G.. Smith concurs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Griffin Smith, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frank II. Cox, for appellant.",
      "Townsend S Toionsend, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "McLemore v. Heriot.\n4-8980\n223 S. W. 2d 502\nOpinion delivered October 10, 1949.\nFrank II. Cox, for appellant.\nTownsend S Toionsend, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0779-01",
  "first_page_order": 801,
  "last_page_order": 803
}