Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Road Improvement District No. 1 of Prairie County

• Decision Date: 17 February 1919
• Docket Number: 109
• Citation: 209 S.W. 725,137 Ark. 587
• Parties: CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. ROAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 OF PRAIRIE COUNTY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

209 S.W. 725

137 Ark. 587

CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. ROAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 OF PRAIRIE COUNTY

No. 109

Supreme Court of Arkansas

February 17, 1919

Appeal from Prairie Circuit Court, Northern District; Thomas C Trimble, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Thos S. Buzbee and George B. Pugh, for appellant; J. G. Gamble, of counsel.

The court erred in refusing the requests of appellant for findings of facts and declarations of law and the assessments are excessive and unreasonable and a burden on interstate commerce. Railroad property should be assessed on an acreage basis and the same amount per acre as other lands in the district equally distant from the road. The future increase in business as the country develops is not a direct benefit and cannot be considered. Acts 1914, No. 212, §§ 4 and 14-18; Acts 1913, No. 212; 118 Ark. 119-124; 232 F. 579; 113 Id. 493.

Charles A. Walls, for appellee.

The testimony sustains the judgment below. The assessments are not discriminatory nor excessive. Acts 1917, No. 212; Acts 1917, § 12. The railroads were materially benefited. The assessments were made by men familiar with values in the locality; they were high-toned, honorable men. No injustice was done the railroads. The assessment is not taking property without due process of law. The Legislature had ample authority to authorize the assessments on railroads as well as other property in the district and such assessments have often been upheld. 92 Ark. 93; 112 Id. 101. Railroads are not assessed on an acreage basis, but by the Railroad Tax Commission on a mileage basis and certified to the county clerks. Due notice and hearings were given to all landholders in the county court and on appeal. These judgments are conclusive that the assessments were just and reasonable. 130 Ark. 410. Railroads are subject to assessment. 97 Ark. 303; 103 Id. 135; 92 Id. 93; 112 Id. 101. The judgments are conclusive unless reversed on appeal. 117 Ark. 30; 81 Id. 75; 84 Id. 262; 91 Id. 36; 90 Id. 417; 94 Id. 417; Ib. 217; 110 Id. 135; 189 U.S. 629; 4 Dillon Mun. C., par. 1365 m.; 96 U.S. 97. The 14th amendment does not require that assessments be made according to benefits. 96 U.S. 97; 191 U.S. 310; 164 Id. 112; 154 Id. 629; 168 Id. 611; Page & Jones on Tax. 927, 933, 934 and 1003; 167 U.S. 548. See also 205 U.S. 135.

Appellant has not been denied the equal protection of the laws. 7 Cyc 158; 8 Id. 1950-1962; 84 Ky. 156; 197 U.S. 430; 239 Id. 204; 97 U.S. 466; 125 Id. 345.

These local assessment laws are not unconstitutional. 128 U.S. 578; 181 Id. 324; 181 Id. 394; lb. 399; 187 Id. 540; 195 Id. 351; 166 Id. 226, 257-8; 147 Id. 190.

The assessment is fair and equal and made according to law and is sustained by the law and evidence. 84 Ark. 262; 68 Id. 276; 71 Id. 17; 47 Ga. 90; 66 Kan. 139; 72 Mich. 100; 96 Ark. 543; 81 Id. 80; 80 Id. 316; 255 Ill. 398. The assessment was made upon the proper basis and theory. 106 Ark. 151; 96 Id. 410; 113 Id. 493. The evidence sustains the findings. 73 Id. 187. The assessment of benefits is largely one of discretion, forecast and estimate. 100 Ark. 366. The opinion of honest, capable men of good sound judgment should not be disturbed, especially when sustained by the county and circuit court on appeal. Ib. 134 N.Y.S. 883, does not apply, as the facts are not the same. 101 Minn. 496. See also 89 Ark. 513; 50 Id. 116; 86 Id. 1.

OPINION

McCULLOCH, C. J.

Appellee is a road improvement district organized under the provisions of a special statute applicable to Lonoke and Prairie Counties. Acts 1913, p. 864. The highway to be improved runs parallel with the line of railroad of appellant and through the incorporated towns of DeValls Bluff and Biscoe, which are located on appellant's railroad. Appellant's railroad is included within the boundaries of the district and the benefits thereon have been assessed, together with the other real property in the district for the purpose of raising funds to pay for the construction of the improvement.

The statute provides for assessments of benefits to be made by assessors to be appointed by the county court, and that when the assessments are made by the board of assessors and filed in the county court, notice thereof must be given by publication, and that any owner of real property in the district may appear and be heard on the question of correctness of the assessments. The statute also provides for appeals by aggrieved owners of real property from the judgment of the county court to the circuit court. The statute seems to have been complied with in respect to the method of assessments and appellant appeared in the county court and made objections to the assessment of benefits on its property made by the board of assessors. Appellant took an appeal to the circuit court from an adverse judgment of the county court approving the assessments of the board of assessors, and the cause was heard de novo in the circuit court and that court rendered a judgment approving the assessment of benefits made by the assessors.

The original assessment was made in the year 1914, and there was a reassessment of all the property in the district in the year 1915 pursuant to the terms of the statute. The reassessment of appellant's property was in excess of the original assessment, and since the latter only applied to the installment payable in the year 1914, it is unnecessary to give it further consideration. The original assessment of appellant's property was $ 50,000 estimated value of benefits and the reassessment fixed the value of the benefits at $ 58,850.

The prosecution of the appeal to the county court, and thence to the circuit court could only raise the question of correctness of assessments of benefits, and we confine ourselves to a consideration of that issue without looking to the statute to determine whether any other objections can be made to the proceedings. Mo. Pac. Rd. Co. v. Conway County Bridge Dist., 134 Ark. 292, 204 S.W. 630.

We have decided that this class of cases, that is to say where there is an appeal under the statute from a trial in the circuit court on the question of amount of benefits assessed in an improvement district, falls within the rule that this court on appeal will be bound by the findings of the trial court where the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain the findings. St. Louis & San Francisco Rd. Co. v. Ft. Smith & Van Buren Bridge Dist., 113 Ark. 493, 168 S.W. 1066; Mo. Pac. Rd. Co. v. Conway County Bridge Dist., supra. In other words, we will not undertake to settle the weight or preponderance of the evidence, but will merely inquire whether or not the evidence is legally sufficient to sustain the findings of the trial court.

With the inquiry thus narrowed, it is not difficult to discover evidence in this case which is legally sufficient to sustain the findings of the trial court. The case was heard in the circuit court on oral testimony embracing that of all of the members of each of the boards of assessors, and numerous other witnesses, including skilled engineers employed both by the railroad company and the improvement district. There is a sharp conflict in the testimony as to the amount of benefits which will probably accrue to the railroad property from the construction of the improvement, but as before stated we are not concerned with that controversy further than to determine whether or not the trial court had testimony of a substantial nature to sustain its findings.

Learned counsel for appellant assail the...