Ferguson v. McLain

• Decision Date: 01 June 1914
• Docket Number: 3
• Citation: 168 S.W. 127,113 Ark. 193
• Parties: FERGUSON v. MCLAIN
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

168 S.W. 127

FERGUSON v. MCLAIN

113 Ark. 193

No. 3

Supreme Court of Arkansas

June 1, 1914

Appeal from Jackson Chancery Court; George T. Humphries, Chancellor affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

Phillips Hillhouse & Boyce, for appellant.

Jno. W. & Jos. M. Stayton, for appellees.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

The council of the city of Newport passed an ordinance, upon petition of a majority in value of the owners of real property in the city, creating an improvement district composed of the whole city, for the purpose of erecting and maintaining a bridge across Newport Lake, a body of water about a mile in length and 200 feet in width, lying within the limits of the city.

A board of improvement was appointed in accordance with the provisions of the statute, and the board proceeded to form plans to make the improvement, and appellant, who was a property owner in the city, instituted this action to restrain further proceedings. He attacks the ordinance creating the district on the ground that the character of the improvement is not such as may be made by taxation as for local improvements within the meaning of the Constitution and statutes of this State; and the suit also involves an attack on the proceedings of the board, in that there is a variance between the improvement described in the petition of the property owners, and that which is about to be undertaken by the board. The petition was for the formation of a district for the purpose of erecting and maintaining, at the site of the present bridge across Newport Lake, a new bridge and roadway leading from the east end of such new bridge to the west end of Malcolm Avenue; whereas it is alleged that the board has adopted a plan to construct an earthen embankment out into the lake at the site of the old bridge, and to construct a short bridge, only about twelve feet in length, to connect the abutments.

The chancellor sustained a demurrer to the complaint, and after final judgment dismissed the complaint for want of equity.

The first question presented was decided in the case of Shibley v. Fort Smith & Van Buren Bridge District, 96 Ark. 410, 132 S.W. 444, where we held that "a bridge for the use of the public, like a street in a city or a highway in the country, is undoubtedly of great benefit and convenience to the traveling public nevertheless, it may be also of special benefit to adjoining lands and a fit subject for construction from the...