Board of Directors, St. Francis Levee Dist. v. Morledge, s. 1949-1954

• Decision Date: 14 March 1960
• Docket Number: Nos. 1949-1954,s. 1949-1954
• Citation: 332 S.W.2d 822,231 Ark. 815
• Parties: BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ST. FRANCIS LEVEE DIST., Appellant, v. George B. MORLEDGE et al., Appellees. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ST. FRANCIS LEVEE DIST., Appellant, v. James T. EDGAR et al., Appellees. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ST. FRANCIS LEVEE DIST., Appellant, v. John G. DILLON et al., Appellees. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ST. FRANCIS LEVEE DIST., Appellant, v. Fred THOMAS, Appellee. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ST. FRANCIS LEVEE DIST., Appellant, v. Thomas GATLING et al., Appellees (two cases).
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 822

332 S.W.2d 822

231 Ark. 815

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ST. FRANCIS LEVEE DIST., Appellant, v. George B. MORLEDGE et al., Appellees.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ST. FRANCIS LEVEE DIST., Appellant, v. James T. EDGAR et al., Appellees.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ST. FRANCIS LEVEE DIST., Appellant, v. John G. DILLON et al., Appellees.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ST. FRANCIS LEVEE DIST., Appellant, v. Fred THOMAS, Appellee.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ST. FRANCIS LEVEE DIST., Appellant, v. Thomas GATLING et al., Appellees (two cases).

Nos. 1949-1954.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 14, 1960.

F. N. Burke, Jr., Daggett & Daggett, Marianna, for appellant.

Carroll C. Cannon, Forrest City, Shaver & Shaver, Giles Dearing, Wynne, for appellees.

McFADDIN, Justice.

These appeals stem from condemnation proceedings instituted by the Board of Directors of the St. Francis Levee District against the appellee landowners in Cross County and St. Francis County. The Levee District is condemning a right of way approximately 1400 feet wide for a new river channel. The cut for the new river will be 400 feet wide at the top and 180 feet at the bottom, and will be constructed on a 3 to 1 slope. The depth of the cut for the river will vary from 24 feet to 45 feet.

When the Levee District filed the condemnation cases, its appraisers, proceeding under Act No. 177 of 1945 (§ 35-1102 et seq. Ark.Stats.) and Act No. 249 of 1949 (§ 21-805 Ark.Stats.), proceeded to make appraisals. The landowners excepted to the appraisals, claimed that all elements of damages had not been considered, and asked much larger damages. As a result of the trial in the Chancery Court, the landowners received larger damages; and it is from these decrees that there are these appeals. Below we tabulate the name of the landowner, the amount fixed by the appraisers, and the amount as finally awarded each landowner by the Chancery Court:

                Landowner  Appraiser's Figures  Amount Awarded by Chancery Court
                ----------------------------------------------------------------
                Morledge            $16,126.50                       $102,450.00
                Thomas                9,651.63                         57,700.00
                Edgar                 4,755.00                         45,085.00
                Dillon               12,629.75                         36,705.00
                Gatling              20,161.88                         32,089.00
                

The trial in the Chancery Court consumed more than nine days, and the Chancellor made six visits of inspection to the premises. The cases of Morledge, Thomas, Edgar, and Dillon were tried on the same theory of damages; but the District and Gatling stipulated for a trial on a different theory of damages. So it became necessary for the Chancellor to make separate findings in the Gatling cases. We consider first the cases of Morledge, Thomas, Edgar, and Dillon.

The learned Chancellor reduced his findings to writing; and they are so clear that we copy excerpts:

Chancellor's Findings in the Cases of Morledge, Thomas, Edgar, and Dillon.

'These causes originated in the Circuit Courts of Cross and St. Francis Counties and were transferred to this court when the defendant landowners raised the question as to the right of the District to condemn their lands under the power of eminent domain. This court having thus obtained jurisdiction and having found that the District had the legal right to condemn and acquire the lands as a right of way for levee purposes must needs retain jurisdiction for any and all purposes. The Chancellor must now constitute himself a jury for the purpose of assessing damages, if any be due, for the taking of private property for a public purpose. These cases were consolidated by agreement for the purpose of trial. The factual background in each case is practically and basically the same though there are some differences in the pleadings in the case of the District vs. Thomas Gatling, et al., which necessitate separate findings in that case.

'All of the lands involved are located in what is called 'Clark Corner Cutoff'. This is one of the segments of the District's plan of levee and drainage improvements in the St. Francis and Mississippi River area. The District has proceeded in the condemnation proceedings under the provision of Act 249 of the Acts of the Legislature for the year 1949. The Chancellor has previously held that there had been a substantial compliance with the provisions of this Act on the part of the District and that it had by appropriate action become the sponsor of the project known as 'The St. Francis River Valley Project', which is now being constructed by the U. S. Government pursuant to the authority of the Acts of Congress. The full details of the plan or project are contained and set forth in House Document #132, 81st Congress, First Session. A copy of said document forms a part of the record in the cases. * * *

'The overall purpose of the project is to provide facilities to carry off and contain all surface waters falling within an area including Southeast Missouri and Northeast Arkansas within the St. Francis and Mississippi watershed. The main purpose of the plan is to prevent any flood waters (either head water or back water) from the Mississippi River or the St. Francis River from reaching any part of the vast area in Missouri and Arkansas lying east of Crowley's Ridge on the west and the Mississippi River on the East except within a narrow floodway along the east side of Crowley's Ridge. When the project is completed and the improvements made it will protect from flood waters from either river all of the State of Missouri and Arkansas which lie in the St. Francis River watershed, except for the narrow floodway. The project plans contemplate that the lands belonging to defendants will be located within this narrow floodway * * *. This floodway will be contained on the west by Crowley's Ridge and on the east by a levee to be constructed under the plans. The effect of the project will be to provide for two distinct drainage districts in the valley where only one has existed previously * * *.

'Construction, according to the plan, began several years ago and the new levee to form the east boundary of the floodway has been completed from the Mississippi to Madison, Arkansas, some few miles to the south of Clark's Corner Cutoff. This levee will be built to grade through the Clark Corner Cutoff area though the exact location in the area has not been definitely determined at this time. The new river through the area is now under construction.

'In the Clark Corner Cutoff segment with which we are concerned St. Francis River makes a wide bend of some nine miles and flows to the east of all the lands involved in the action. Under the plans which are now in the process of being carried out a new river will be cut almost straight across this bend and through the lands of defendants. This new river will be 400 feet or more wide at the top and 180 feet or more at the bottom and will be constructed on a 3 to 1 slope. The depth of the cut for the river will vary from 45 feet to 24 feet toward the south end. The district will utilize Sand Slough and Horse Shoe Lake as a part of the cut for the new river and the distance around the bend will be shortened some four miles or more.

'The new levee will be built across the river so as to create a dam at the north end of the area and also at the south end of the area and will cut off the flow of water through the old channel of the river and force the flow into the new river. The new river will bisect the lands of the defendants so that some of the farms will be divided by the new river. While the exact location of the levee to form the floodway has not been definitely determined at the time of trial, it must necessarily be located between the old river and the new river and most, if not all, of the lands of the parties will be placed in the floodway to becreated between Crowley's Ridge and the new levee and the lands must bear this additional servitude. From the maps and plats filed with the testimony, it appears that at this point this floodway will be from two to three miles wide.

'In each case the District filed its petition for condemnation and in each case the appraisers made and filed their award of damages. In each instance the appraisers made the award of damages for the value of the lands actually taken for agricultural purposes only and made no award for any other damage of any kind which might result from the condemnation. Exceptions were duly filed to the awards made by the appraisers and in the pleadings the defendants alleged and set forth in detail their claims for damages for the taking and damaging of their lands.

'The record in the case discloses that defendant Morledge operates his farm as one unit consisting of 1,018 acres of cultivated land and 458 acres of woodland. The farm is well improved and the improvements include a cotton gin, warehouse, store building, two large residence buildings, and many barns and tenant houses. A large lake of approximately 26 acres of water is located on the right of way taken and it has been used to irrigate some 300 acres or more of crop land and furnish water for a valuable irrigation system. The new river will destroy the lake and will divide this farm into almost equal parts some parts of which will be isolated by the new river. The headquarters (gin, store, etc.) will be located on the west side of the new river. The actual land condemned consists of 56.11 acres of cultivated farm land and 88.48 acres of woodland including the lake.

'The Dillon farm consists of 310 acres of crop land and 161 acres of woodland and pasture. The new river will divide the farm so as to isolate approximately 27 acres from the other lands in the farm. The action condemns 54.86 acres of crop land and 30.70 acres of woodland and pasture land.

'The Edgars farm consists of 441 acres of cultivated land and 334 acres of woodland. The District by this action condemns 21.39 acres of crop land and 12.72...