Cotten v. City Or Benton
| Decision Date | 22 February 1915 |
| Docket Number | 202 |
| Parties | COTTEN v. CITY or BENTON |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Saline Chancery Court; J. P. Henderson, Chancellor reversed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
The General Assembly of 1911 passed Special Act No. 113, which was an act to declare Benton, Arkansas, a city of the second class and for other purposes.
The city council of the city of Benton, proceeding upon the assumption that the act was valid, and constitutional, passed an ordinance requiring property owners to construct sidewalks and curbs.
M. M Cotten failed to comply with the order and the city council caused a walk and curb to be constructed in front of his property and upon his refusal to pay for the same a complaint was filed in the chancery court of Saline County asking that the property be condemned and sold for the payment of the amount expended by the city for the construction of the walk and curb.
The chancellor found in favor of the city of Benton and from a decree entered in its favor Cotten has prosecuted an appeal to this court.
Decree reversed and cause dismissed.
J S. Abercrombie and Hal L. Norwood, for appellant.
The act was unconstitutional and void. Const., art. 5, § 24 art. 12, § 2; 36 Ark. 166.
W. V. Evans, for appellee.
The act is not unconstitutional. The Legislature is the supreme judge of the necessity or propriety of a special law. 61 Ark. 25; 59 Id. 530; 48 Id. 370; 53 Id. 494; Const. Ark., art. 5, § 24.
The only contention made by counsel for the defendant for a reversal of the decree is that the special act above referred to making Benton a city of the second class is unconstitutional, and in this we think counsel are correct.
Article 12, section 3, of the Constitution of 1874, reads as follows:
"The General Assembly shall provide, by general laws, for the organization of cities (which may be classified) and incorporated towns, and restrict their power of taxation, assessment, borrowing money and contracting debts, so as to prevent the abuse of such power."
Counsel for the defendant insist that the special act in question violates this clause of the Constitution and cites the case of Little Rock v. Parish, 36 Ark. 166, in support of their contention. In that case the court held:
On the other hand, it is contended by counsel for the city of Benton that while article 5, section 24, provides in effect that in all cases where a general law can be made applicable no special law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Improvement of Gravette Waterworks Improvement District v. Carman
...Const., art. 12, sec. 3. Ib. § 2. The classification was purely arbitrary. Kirby's Dig., §§ 5421, 5422-4. After the decision in 117 Ark. 190, the Legislature passed curative act of March 23, 1915, supra, which cured all defects in proceedings. 125 Ark. 126. 5. The acts and proceedings in re......
-
Skipper v. Street Improvement District No. 1
... ... the year 1918, two separate petitions were circulated in the ... city of Morrilton for the establishment of two improvement ... districts designated respectively as ... ...
-
Belote v. Coffman
... ... 78 Ark. 432; 106 Ark. 506; 27 ... Ark. 266; 105 Ark. 380; Cotton v. City of ... Benton, 117 Ark. 190, infra; 77 S.E. 264; 139 ... W ... L. Moose, ... ...
-
Board of Improvement v. Carman
...and in this capacity enacted the ordinances out of which this litigation arises. On February 22, 1915, in the case of Cotten v. City of Benton, 117 Ark. 190, 174 S. W. 231, we held unconstitutional a special act of the Legislature declaring the town of Benton a city of the second class, as ......