¶1This case is controlled by the decision in the case of Hackett City v. State, ante p. 133. The appellant in that case is an incorporated town, while the appellee, Port Smith, was, during a part of the time for which the recovery is sought, a city of the second class, and during the residue a city of the first class. But a review of the legislation referred to in the Hackett City case will show that the difference in the facts tends to strengthen rather than weaken the city’s position. The judgment in its favor will be affirmed.
56 Ark. 137
State v. Fort Smith
Decided April 30, 1892
Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1892-04-30
Action by the State, for the use of the Port Smith district of Sebastian county, against the city of Port Smith, to recover the amount of certain municipal fines collected and paid into the city treasury for the violation of the city ordinances, the acts punished being also offenses against the State. Judgment was rendered for the defendant, from which plaintiff appeals.
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1935
5 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1892-04-30
View the full empirical analysis of this case →