Desha-Drew Road Improvement Dist. No. 1 v. Taylor

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: McCulloch
• Citation: Desha-Drew Road Improvement Dist. No. 1 v. Taylor, 197 S.W. 1152 (Ark. 1917)
• Decision Date: 22 October 1917
• Docket Number: (No. 171.)
• Parties: DESHA-DREW ROAD IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 1 et al. v. TAYLOR et al.

197 S.W. 1152

DESHA-DREW ROAD IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 1 et al. v. TAYLOR et al.

(No. 171.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

October 22, 1917.

Appeal from Drew Chancery Court; Z. T. Wood, Chancellor.

Suit by J. G. Taylor and others against the Desha-Drew Road Improvement District No. 1 and others. Decree for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Reversed and dismissed.

Williamson & Williamson, of Monticello, for appellants.

McCULLOCH, C. J.

This appeal involves an attack on the validity of a special statute enacted by the General Assembly of 1917 creating the "Desha-Drew Road Improvement District No. 1" for the improvement of certain public roads in Desha and Drew counties. There are several of the roads constituting a group which do not run parallel, nor do they converge to a common center, but they intersect each other at certain points. The appellees are owners of property in the district, and secured a favorable decree from the chancellor holding that the statute was invalid, but we are not favored with a brief in their behalf and must look to the allegations of the complaint for specification of the grounds of attack. Only those which appear to be important will be discussed. The questions whether or not the improvement of several roads and the size of the district constituted a single local improvement, and as to the validity of a district comprising parts of two counties, are controlled by the decision of this court in Bennett v. Johnson, 197 S. W. 1148, and that point of attack made by appellees is thus disposed of against them.

Another point of attack is that the statute was not legally passed by both houses of the Legislature, for the reason that the journals of the Senate fail to show a vote on the bill under the proper title. The statute originated as a Senate bill, being Senate Bill No. 262, introduced by Senator Collins, and entitled "An act creating the Desha-Drew Road Improvement District No. 1, in Drew and Desha counties, Arkansas." The only entry on the journals of the Senate in regard to the final passage of the bill of that number refers to it as "S. B. No. 262 (Collins), entitled a bill for an act to be entitled `An act authorizing guardians, curators and wards to extend and renew notes, bonds, deeds of trust and mortgages of real estate.'" This was obviously a clerical error as shown by all of the records in the office of the secretary of state, to which it is our duty to look in determining whether or not a bill has been legally passed. Butler v. Kavanaugh, 103 Ark. 109, 146 S. W. 120; Mechanics' Building & Loan Association v. Coffman, 110 Ark. 269, 162 S. W. 1090.

The next contention is that the whole act is void because as enrolled and signed by the Governor it omits a word essential to the meaning of the section. Section 2 of the original bill as passed by both houses in describing the roads reads as follows:

"Beginning at the point where the Monticello and Tillar road crossed the military road in section 7," etc.

The enrolled bill omitted the word ...