Bonds v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 07 June 1926
• Docket Number: (No. 35.)
• Parties: BONDS et al. v. WILSON et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

284 S.W. 24

BONDS et al. v. WILSON et al.

(No. 35.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

June 7, 1926.

Appeal from Van Buren Chancery Court; Sam Williams, Chancellor.

Suit by S. S. Bonds and others against Herbert R. Wilson and others. From a decree of dismissal, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Opie Rogers, of Clinton, and Strait & Strait, of Morrillton, for appellants.

H. W. Applegate, Atty. Gen., J. S. Abercrombie, Asst. Atty. Gen., W. H. Cooper, J. F. Koone, and Garner Fraser, all of Clinton, for appellees.

McCULLOCH, C. J.

Section 3 of Act No. 5 of the Extraordinary Session of the General Assembly, approved October 10, 1923, outlines the system of state highways, and reads as follows:

"The state highways are hereby declared to be those primary roads and secondary roads and connecting state roads heretofore designated by the highway commission, approved by the Governor and tentatively approved by the federal authorities, as shown by a map on file in the office of the state highway commission, entitled: `Map of the State of Arkansas Showing Proposed System of Primary and Secondary Federal Aid Roads and Connecting State Roads,' and marked, `Revised December 1, 1922,' except that portion of said roads traversing incorporated towns of twenty-five hundred and over inhabitants. The state highway commission is hereby required to preserve said map as a permanent record.

"The state highway commission is hereby empowered, with any necessary consent of the proper federal authorities, to make, from time to time, such necessary changes and additions to the roads designated as state highways as it may deem proper, and such changes or additions shall become effective immediately upon the filing of a new map, as a permanent and official record in the office of the state highway commission. Provided, however, the state highway commission shall not have the authority to eliminate any part of contemplated highway system as shown on map now filed with the highway department."

Section 20 of the same statute declares it to be the duty of the state highway commission to maintain and keep in repair the state highways, and to pay for same out of the public funds accruing from the gasoline, oil and automobile tax. That section reads, in part, as follows:

"It shall be the duty of the state highway commission to begin as soon as practicable and continue the maintenance of all roads that are now or hereafter may be properly designated as state highways, to the end that every part of the state highways shall be properly, fairly and equitably maintained and kept in repair."

Other sections of the statute provide for the collection of the gasoline, oil, and automobile taxes and for the distribution and application thereof in the improvement and maintenance of highways.

There is brought to our attention in the present record the highway map referred to in section 3 of the statute, and one of the primary roads designated on that map runs from Little Rock in a northwesterly direction to the Missouri Line, running through the towns of Conway, Clinton, Leslie, Marshall, Harrison, Berryville, and Eureka Springs. No other towns or villages are indicated on the original map of that route. County lines are designated on the map, and the contour and direction of the roads are indicated, without specifying the distances or objects except the towns mentioned above and the county lines. It appears from this map that there is a detour of the route eastward from the town of Clinton, which turns westward again to the direct line south of the town of Leslie, in Searcy county. It is shown in the present record that the distance around this detour is about 21 miles, and that the adoption of the direct route along the highway from Clinton to Leslie would shorten the road a little over 7 miles. The state highway commission is about to change the route from the detour indicated on the original map to the direct route mentioned above, and this action was instituted by appellants, who are citizens and owners of property along the original route, to enjoin the commission from making this change. The contention of appellants is that the change in the route is a material one, and that the commission has no authority under the statute to make the change. The chancery court...