Eickhoff v. City of Argenta
| Decision Date | 04 October 1915 |
| Docket Number | (No. 143.) |
| Citation | 179 S.W. 367 |
| Parties | EICKHOFF v. CITY OF ARGENTA et al. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pulaski County; W. G. Hendricks, Judge.
Action by George Eickhoff against the City of Argenta and Street Improvement District No. 11 of Argenta. From a judgment on demurrer, dismissing the suit as to defendant district, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
The appellant sued the city of Argenta and street improvement district No. 11 of that city, which we will hereafter designate as the district, alleging that he was the owner of certain lots in the city of Argenta on which there were six store buildings, fronting on East Washington avenue for a distance of 140 feet. The lots are particularly described in the complaint. It was alleged that the buildings were erected with reference to the then street grade as established by the city; that the city was a city of the first class, and that the district was a corporation duly organized under the laws of the state of Arkansas. It was alleged that along the front of the property described there was a sidewalk space, on which was laid a concrete pavement, with a concrete curb, which were in good condition, and which the plaintiff had laid at a great expense; that the pavement and curb had been laid on the grade established by law; that the defendants unlawfully broke the concrete pavement and curb into pieces and hauled it away; that they then lowered the earth along the sidewalk to a depth of two feet, leaving the front entrances of the stores 18 inches or 2 feet above the sidewalk; that the unlawful acts of the defendants, in the manner set forth, had cut off the necessary ingress and egress to and from the store buildings, and had thus greatly lessened the usable value of the same, to the damage of plaintiff in the sum of $14,750, in addition to the value of the concrete walk and curb, which defendants destroyed, of the value of $224, for all of which the plaintiff prayed judgment. The district demurred to the complaint, on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint as to the district. The plaintiff duly prosecutes this appeal.
Vaughan & Akers, of Little Rock, for appellant. Rose, Hemingway, Cantrell, Loughborough & Miles, of Little Rock, for appellees.
WOOD, J. (after stating the facts as above).
Cities and towns have the power to fix and change the grades of their streets. These powers are expressly conferred upon them for the public good. Sections 5456, 5475, 5495, Kirby's Dig. Under the statute and our decisions, where abutting owners have made improvements with reference to the established grade of the streets, thereafter if the grade is changed to the damage of abutting owners, the city is liable for such damage. Kirby's Digest, §§ 5495-5497; Fayetteville v. Stone, 104 Ark. 136, 148 S. W. 524; Dickerson v. Okolona, 98 Ark. 206, 135 S. W. 863, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1194; Jonesboro v. Pribble, 112 Ark. 554, 166 S. W. 576.
Improvement districts in cities and towns are quasi governmental agencies. They have no powers, except those expressly conferred by statute, and those necessarily implied from the powers expressly given. They are under such duties, and are subject to such liabilities, only as are imposed by statute. Board of Improvement of Sewer District No. 2 v. Moreland, 94 Ark. 380, 127 S. W. 469, 21 Ann. Cas. 957.
"Under the generic term `street' is...
To continue reading
Request your trial