Earle Road Improvement District No. 6 of Crittenden County v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 25 October 1920 |
| Docket Number | 187 |
| Parties | EARLE ROAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 6 OF CRITTENDEN COUNTY v. JOHNSON |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Crittenden Chancery Court; Archer Wheatley, Chancellor reversed.
Reversed and remanded.
Rose Hemingway, Cantrell & Loughborough, for appellant.
1. The court erred in refusing to order a reassessment of benefits in the district.
Act No 55, Acts 1919, § 11, especially authorizes to reassessments of benefits not oftener than once a year, and more than a year has elapsed since benefits were assessed and defendants were justified in making the reassessment. The court was misled by a misconstruction of the language used in 130 Ark. 418. See 98 Ark. 544; 133 Id. 119; 134 Id. 293; Ib. 14; 213 S.W. 775. There was no proof that the doubling of the old assessment was arbitrary or unreasonable.
S. V. Neely, for appellee.
Act 55, § 11, does not authorize the increase in assessment, and, if so, it is not a valid exercise of the power conferred. Page & Jones on Assessments, vol. 2, chap. 16, p. 1608. The assessors and the court having finally determined the benefits, even the Legislature can not change the benefits nor delegate its power to an inferior tribunal except to correct mistakes or manifest injustice. 130 Ark. 410. The chancellor correctly construed act No. 55 and section 11 is invalid.
Act No. 55 of the regular session of the General Assembly of 1919 (Road Acts, volume 1, page 36) undertakes to cure the irregularities in the organization, under general statutes with reference to road improvement districts (act No. 338, session of 1915) of a road district in Crittenden County, designated as Earle Road Improvement District No. 6 of Crittenden County, and certain other districts in that county and to validate said organizations. The same statute also created three other districts and provided a complete scheme for the assessment of benefits and the construction of the improvements.
The section of the statute relating to the validation of Earle Road Improvement District No. 6 reads as follows:
We are called on to construe another section of the same statute, which reads as follows:
Appellee, who is an owner of real property within the district mentioned above, instituted this action in the chancery court of Crittenden County, alleging, in substance, that the commissioners of the district have ordered a reassessment of benefits to the real property in the district and are about to double the assessments in order to meet the increased cost of construction of the road, and that, unless restrained, they will issue bonds in excess of the original assessment of benefits. The prayer of the complaint is that the commissioners of the district be restrained from proceeding to increase the assessment of benefits "or to do anything more in annual revision thereof than to correct the particular instances of injustice, if such there be." The commissioners of the district answered, setting forth the fact that it was found that the cost of construction of the improvement was largely in excess of the original estimate and that the reassessment was ordered in order to ascertain the true amount of benefits resulting from the construction of the improvement. The court sustained a demurrer to this answer, and, on the election of the commissioners not to plead further, the court rendered a final decree in accordance with the prayer of the complaint.
There are two questions presented for determination: First, whether or not the Legislature has the authority to order a general reassessment of benefits in an improvement district; and next, whether or not the language of the statute before us contains such authority, or whether it is limited to a mere readjustment of assessments so as to correct inequalities and errors in the original...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. May
...The statute is considered in Road Improvement Dist. No. 3 v. Morris, 153 Ark. 635, 241 S. W. 389, and also in Earle Road Improvement Dist. v. Johnson, 145 Ark. 438, 224 S. W. 965. In Road Improvement Dist. No. 3 v. Morris, supra, the court found that plaintiffs had stated a case entitling t......
-
Sanders v. Wilmans
...organization thereunder, gave the commissioners some additional powers, and reserved the 30 per cent. limitation on cost. 146 Ark. 287; 145 Ark. 438; 134 Ark. 30. The Alexander law authorizes the extension of boundaries to include city. The boundaries of the district are as clearly shown on......
-
Massey v. Arkansas & Missouri Highway District In Pulaski County
...of benefits unless there is a change of plans, refutes that contention. And the authority to make a complete reassessment is upheld in 145 Ark. 438, and 153 Ark. 5. The assessment of benefits properly covers work already done. 43 S.Ct. 261; 139 Ark. 347-8; 156 Ark. 267; 154 Ark. 554. 6. The......
-
Durand v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist.
...reassess the property for benefits, and correct any injustice that may have been done in the original assessment. Earle Road Imp. Dist. v. Johnson, 145 Ark. 438, 224 S.W. 965; State v. Knott, 129 Fla. 136, 176 So. 113; Everglades Drain. Dist. v. Florida, etc., Corp., 5 Cir., 74 F.2d 914; Fr......