Freeze v. Improvement Dist. No. 16

• Decision Date: 13 November 1916
• Docket Number: (No. 246.)
• Citation: Freeze v. Improvement Dist. No. 16, 189 S.W. 660 (Ark. 1916)
• Parties: FREEZE et al. v. IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 16 OF CITY OF JONESBORO et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

189 S.W. 660

FREEZE et al. v.IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 16 OF CITY OF JONESBORO et al.

(No. 246.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

November 13, 1916.

Appeal from Craighead Chancery Court; J. D. Block, Special Chancellor.

Action by R. A. Freeze and others against Improvement DistrictNo. 16 of the City of Jonesboro and others.From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal.Affirmed.

H. M. Mayes, of Jonesboro, for appellants.Lamb, Turney & Sloan, of Jonesboro, for appellees.

McCULLOCH, C. J.

An improvement district has been formed in the city of Jonesboro for the purpose of paving parts of certain streets near the center of that city, and this is an action instituted by appellant in the chancery court of Craighead county to restrain the board of improvement of the district from carrying out the purposes of the organization.It is alleged that the organization is void upon several grounds set forth in the complaint.

The first attack is made on the ground that the boundary lines of the district are insufficiently set forth to constitute a definite description, so that property owners may know the precise territorial limits of the district.The description begins with a point in the center of a certain quarter section, and it is claimed that the subdivision mentioned is not an exact square according to the government surveys; in other words, that it is a fractional quarter section, and that the use of the word "center" in the description does not designate a specific point of beginning.It might be a question of construction to determine whether the word "center" referred to the exact geographical center of the quarter section, or to the common corners of the four smaller subdivisions constituting the quarter section; but whenever necessary to construe the word thus used it can be done, and that will make certain the use in which the word is meant.It is not contended that the difference makes any substantial change in the line of the district; but, even if it does, we are of the opinion that the use of the word does not make the description so uncertain as would invalidate the organization of the district.

It is also contended that the description is indefinite for the reason that it designates one of the lines as running along the north boundary of the right of way of a certain railroad, and it is argued that it is an insufficient description, without designating the line more particularly by metes and bounds or otherwise.That should be treated as certain which can be made certain, and it is a matter susceptible of proof as to what constitutes the north boundary line of the right of way of the railroad, and therefore it is a sufficient description.

The next point of attack is that there is a variance between the improvement described in the petition and that described in the ordinance creating the district.It is said that in the petition for the organization of the district the improvement is described as paving certain streets, whereas the ordinance creating the district specifies the improvement as the paving of parts of certain streets.When the language of the petition is compared with that of the ordinance, it is found that they correspond in substance and that the purpose of the organization is described as that of paving certain portions of the street named; the precise extent of the improvement being described alike in each instance.The attack on that score is entirely unfounded.

It is shown that the boundaries of the district include property several blocks distant from the nearest portion of the contemplated improvement, conceded to be about one-fourth mile distant, and that the distant property so included does not adjoin the improvement within the meaning of the constitutional provision authorizing the assessment of real property for local improvements in cities and towns "based upon the consent of a majority in value of the property holders owning property adjoining the locality to be affected."Article 19, § 27,Const. 1874.

That provision of the Constitution has received an...