Brookfield v. Harrahan Viaduct Improvement Dist., 4-2768.

• Decision Date: 05 December 1932
• Docket Number: No. 4-2768.,4-2768.
• Citation: 54 S.W.2d 689
• Parties: BROOKFIELD v. HARRAHAN VIADUCT IMPROVEMENT DIST. et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 689

54 S.W.2d 689

BROOKFIELD v. HARRAHAN VIADUCT IMPROVEMENT DIST. et al.

No. 4-2768.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

December 5, 1932.

Appeal from Crittenden Chancery Court; J. M. Futtrell, Chancellor.

Action by the St. Francis Levee Board and others against J. C. Brookfield to vacate a decree in favor of defendant and against the Harrahan Viaduct Improvement District. From a decree setting aside the former decree, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

J. F. Gautney, of Jonesboro, and J. C. Brookfield, of Wynne, for appellant.

J. L. Shaver and S. W. Ogan, both of Wynne, for appellees.

BUTLER, J.

The Harrahan viaduct improvement district was created by an act of the General Assembly of 1923 (Acts 1923, No. 569, p. 1243) for the purpose of constructing and maintaining an approach to the Harrahan bridge spanning the Mississippi river opposite the city of Memphis. This approach is in Crittenden county, and is known as the Harrahan viaduct. Shortly after the creation of the district, its commissioners met, and Renfrow Turner was elected chairman, and, on the 1st day of November, 1923, by resolution duly passed, it employed the appellant and M. B. Norfleet, Jr., attorneys, to represent the said district for an agreed sum of $7,500 and other necessary expenses while engaged in the discharge of their duties. Sixty per cent. of the fee was to be paid upon the completion of the transcript of the proceedings of said district for the bond issue and the balance due and payable at the discretion of the board. It developed that the commission was unable to function under the act, and the board met on October 28, 1924, for the purpose of arranging for the obligations it had incurred, which included some preliminary expenses for engineering and legal services. On that occasion the board passed the following resolution:

"In consideration of legal services performed to date by J. C. Brookfield and M. B. Norfleet, Jr., attorneys for the district, the district having heretofore issued to them certificates of indebtedness in the total sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) on their fee as provided by contract between the district and them in the total sum of seventy-five hundred dollars ($7,500.00) it being now the purpose of said district to suspend further expenses for legal services until hereafter decided by a majority of the Board of Commissioners of the district. It is hereby ordered by the Board that the president and secretary issue certificates of indebtedness of $500 each to said attorneys in consideration of their preliminary legal services to date.

"That this provision of the Board shall not be deemed to effect said contract of said attorneys as to the cancellation thereof, but the Board in its best judgment deems said attorneys full paid to date for their services.

"It is agreed that in the event said district does not operate further and function that said legal services have been fully paid to date."

On the 24th of March, 1925, the board had a meeting and adopted a resolution reciting the fact that the district had been unable to function and that certain necessary preliminary steps had been taken and expenses incident thereto incurred, including engineering, legal and incidental services, in a total amount of $15,698.59; that the Supreme Court had held that such preliminary expenses are binding liens upon all the real property within the district and provided for the payment of these from tolls to be collected under the supervision of the county court of Crittenden county.

There were some other meetings of the board, the final meeting appearing to have been on the 16th of October, 1926, at which time the preliminary expenses referred to in the resolution of March 24, 1925, had been paid. The Harrahan viaduct, in the meantime, had been taken over and constructed by the State Highway Department and the cost of constructing the same and the preliminary expenses had been paid out of tolls collected from the wooden structure, and the structure as finally completed became a part of the state highway system and as such is now maintained by the highway commission. It is undisputed that the appellant, Brookfield, has received the amount authorized by the resolution of October 28, 1924. The last payment of $500 was in the form of a voucher which was issued to him on October 28th following. On the 27th day of November, 1929, the appellant filed suit against the improvement district in the chancery court of Crittenden county, Ark. (cause No. 3830), in which he sought to recover judgment against the defendant district in the sum of $2,366 as balance claimed by him under his contract of employment aforesaid. On March 17, 1930, the court rendered judgment by default against the district for the sum sued for and retained jurisdiction of the cause for the purpose of fixing a lien and appointing a receiver to enforce the same if the judgment was not paid within sixty days, and for that purpose continued the cause.

On the 14th day of July of the same year, the appellant filed a separate complaint in the said court (cause No. 3939), setting up the judgment he had previously obtained and asking for a receiver and that a tax be levied upon the lands to pay his judgment. Judgment was rendered on the supplemental complaint by the chancellor in vacation in conformity with its prayer. Various newspapers having a circulation in Eastern Arkansas published the action of the court as a news item, and by this means it was brought to the attention of the interveners, who are landowners and taxpayers within the boundaries of the district and against whose lands the tax was to be levied. This action was instituted by the St. Francis levee board, and two of its members, as taxpayers,...