Dickerson v. Town of Okolona

• Citation: 135 S.W. 863
• Parties: DICKERSON v. TOWN OF OKOLONA.
• Decision Date: 13 March 1911
• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas

Page 863

135 S.W. 863

DICKERSON v. TOWN OF OKOLONA.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 13, 1911.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clark County; Jacob M. Carter, Judge.

Action by T. S. Dickerson against the Town of Okolona. Demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Hardage & Wilson, for appellant. Hamby, Haynie & Hamby, for appellee.

McCULLOCH, C. J.

Plaintiff, who owns a lot in the incorporated town of Okolona on which is situated a dwelling house, barn, and other outhouses, instituted this action against said incorporated town to recover damages to the property by reason of lowering the grading of a street.

The complaint, as far as necessary to copy, reads as follows: "That said dwelling house and other buildings and improvements on said premises were erected with reference to the grade for Gurdon street as then adopted by the defendant, and before the time hereafter complained of. That the defendant by its officers and agents did in the latter part of the year 1909 lower and change the grade of said Gurdon street along the front of plaintiff's said property, and thereby made it very inconvenient of ingress and egress, and left said street in such condition that it washes very badly in the time of heavy rains, and caused a large ditch to be cut and washed along the front of plaintiff's property, thereby making it difficult to get into plaintiff's premises, or off of them, and caused plaintiff's lots next to said street and deep ditch to cave off into said ditch and be washed away in time of heavy rains, and causing a diminution in the market value thereof to the amount of $225. That in accordance with sections 5495 to 5497 of Kirby's Digest of the statutes of Arkansas plaintiff appointed an arbitrator and notified the defendant in writing of the same on the ______ day of December, 1909. That the defendant ignored said notice, and has failed and neglected to comply with the provisions of said sections in said digest." The circuit court sustained a demurrer to the complaint, and the plaintiff appealed.

The question presented is whether, under the Constitution and statutes of the state, the owner of property abutting on a street in a city or incorporated town may demand and recover compensation for damage done to the property in the grading of the street. The Constitution declares that "private property shall not be taken, appropriated or damaged for public use without just compensation therefor." Article 2, § 22. A statute on the subject reads as follows:

"Sec. 5495. In all cases where any municipal corporation shall be liable for the payment of damages to the owner or occupant of any lots or grounds, by reason of the grading of any streets or alleys, or public grounds, or part thereof, the said damages shall be ascertained and assessed by three disinterested reputable freeholders of said city, appointed, one by the city or town council, one by the owner of the property injured, and the persons thus appointed shall choose the third person."

"Sec. 5497. If any person shall neglect or refuse to accept the amount so assessed, as herein provided, and shall prosecute the city, and if by suit for damages he or they shall not recover more than the amount allowed by the assessors, such party so prosecuting shall pay all costs of suit. No claimant for damages shall commence any suit for damages on account of such grading or improvement until he shall have filed a claim for greater damages with the city clerk at least thirty days before the commencement of the suit. Nor shall any suit be commenced until after the assessors shall have been appointed and made return of their assessment as herein provided, nor for thirty days thereafter. The city or town council shall, within three days after the claimant shall have notified them in writing that he has appointed his assessors, appoint one assessor on the part of the city, and they shall, within five days thereafter, select the third assessor, and qualify as hereinbefore provided." Act March 9, 1875 (Laws 1874-75, pp. 33, 34, §§ 77, 78).

This court has repeatedly held that a municipal corporation is not responsible in damages for negligent or tortious acts of its officers and agents. Arkadelphia v. Windham, 49 Ark. 139, 4 S. W. 450, 4 Am. St. Rep. 32; Collier v. Ft. Smith, 73 Ark. 447, 84 S. W. 480, 68 L. R. A. 237; Gray v. Batesville, 74 Ark. 519, 86 S. W. 295; Franks v. Holly Grove, 93 Ark. 250, 124 S. W. 514; City of Ft. Smith v. York, 52 Ark. 84, 12 S. W. 157. The authorities on that question are divided, but this court has steadily adhered to its position without considering where the weight of authority rests.

In the case of Simmons v. City of Camden, 26 Ark. 276, 7 Am. Rep. 620, this court held (quoting from the syllabus) that cities and towns have authority to lay out, open, grade, and keep in good repair the streets, and a "suit will not lie at the instance of an individual for damages, resulting from injuries to private property from the lawful exercise of this authority by the incorporation, where there has been no negligence, want or care or skill in its exercise." That decision was rendered in 1871, when there was no statute authorizing the recovery of compensation in such cases. The Constitution of 1868 then in force, unlike the language of the present Constitution, provided only that ...