Churchill v. Vaughan

• Decision Date: 10 April 1916
• Docket Number: 314
• Citation: 185 S.W. 447,123 Ark. 298
• Parties: CHURCHILL v. VAUGHAN
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

185 S.W. 447

123 Ark. 298

CHURCHILL v. VAUGHAN

No. 314

Supreme Court of Arkansas

April 10, 1916

Appeal from White Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Brundidge & Neelly, for appellants.

1. The appeal of Ray and Howel affected their lands and the district remained in full force as to all property owners who did not appeal. Acts 1915, Act 338, § 3, etc. 24 N.E. 131, 175; 2 Words & Phrases, 536.

2. The finding of the county court as to acreage and benefits was final and conclusive, and it appears there was a sufficient number of signers and the district was for the best interest of the county and district. Unless all the owners appealed the court could not determine whether the district was beneficial or not, or whether a majority had signed or not. Page & Jones on Tax. by Assessments, Vol. 2, p. 2011, § 1368.

3. The burden was on appellants to show that it was not for the best interests of the county and that the requisite number of signers had not signed the petition. 113 Ark. 496.

P. R Andrews and Eugene Cypert, for appellees.

1. This case was rightfully appealed to the circuit court and stood for trial de novo on the issues made below. Const. 1874, Art 7, § 33; Kirby's Digest, § 1492.

2. The only issues were, Did the petition contain a majority in acreage or value and was it for the best interests of the district or county. On both these the circuit court found for the remonstrants. The case 24 N.E. 131 is not in point. This court has held that any person can show that a statute has not been complied with. 104 Ark. 145; 119 Ark. 154. The finding below should not be disturbed. 104 Ark. 145; 116 Ark 30.

3. The petition did not contain a majority and the formation of the district was for the best interest of the land owners. The court so found and it is conclusive. 116 Ark. 30; 106 Ark. 304.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

Certain owners of real estate in White County presented a petition to the county court for the creation and establishment of a road improvement district pursuant to the terms of Act No. 338 of the General Assembly of 1915. Descriptions of the road to be constructed, and of the region to be included within the boundaries of the district, were set forth in the petition, and a plat of the proposed district and route of the road was also filed with the petition. A considerable number of owners of real property, which would have been affected by the creation of the district, filed a counter petition protesting against the establishment of the district. The county court heard the matter upon the petition and counter petition and made an order creating and establishing the district in accordance with the prayer of the original petition. Two of the landowners, who were among those who remonstrated against the creation of the district, took an appeal to the circuit court. They filed the affidavit and bond prescribed by the statute. The matter was heard by the circuit court upon the petition and counter petition and upon oral testimony, and the court found that the original petition did not contain the signatures of a majority of the owners of land in the district, and also found that it was not to the best interest of the county, or the landowners within the proposed district to establish the district, and denied the prayer of the petition. Judgment was rendered by the court that said district "be not established as a road improvement district in and for White County, Arkansas." The case is brought here for review on the appeal of the original petitioners.

The case may be disposed of by following the decision of this court in the recent case of Lamberson v. Collins, 123 Ark. 205, 185 S.W. 268, the record failing to show that the terms of the statute were complied with in respect to procuring and filing with the county court a survey of the road and maps, plans, specifications and estimates made by the engineer of the State Highway Commission.

In addition to that, the judgment must be affirmed for the reason that the evidence was sufficient to support the finding of the circuit court that the petition was not signed by a majority of the owners of land within the proposed district, and that it was not to the best interests of the county and of the landowners to establish the district. The evidence on those subjects is conflicting, and there being sufficient to support the finding of the circuit judge it is our duty not to disturb it. Jacks Bayou Drainage District v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 116 Ark. 30, 171 S.W. 867. The statute makes the establishment of the district depend upon a finding by the court that "the petition is signed by either a majority in land value, acreage or in number of landowners within the proposed district," and that the establishment of the district be found to be "to the best interests of the county and landowners in said district."

It is insisted, finally, that the court erred in adjudging that the district be not established, and that inasmuch as only...