Hayward v. Rowland
| Decision Date | 23 November 1931 |
| Docket Number | 7 |
| Citation | 43 S.W.2d 737,184 Ark. 766 |
| Parties | HAYWARD v. ROWLAND |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Bradley Circuit Court; P. Henry, Judge; affirmed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment denying appellant any relief on his petition for a reduction in assessment of the valuation upon his lands by the assessor and the board of equalization.
It appears from the testimony that appellant purchased 7196.75 acres of land in Bradley County from the Saline Development Company on October 18, 1927, for the consideration of $ 1 per acre, subject to certain mineral rights and timber rights already conveyed to other parties. He acquired under the purchase timber rights on about 25 per cent. of the land, and mineral rights in about 50 per cent. There has not been any timber or mineral rights sold since he purchased the lands. He sold certain of the lands, 526 acres on which the grantee already owned the timber rights, in 1929. A large part of the land was said to be inaccessible with little second growth timber thereon, it being claimed that on January 1, 1930, the land was practically denuded of all merchantable timber virgin and second growth. Only three or four hundred acres of the land is suitable for agricultural purposes, and none is in cultivation, and there are no improvements on any of it. A good part of it is overflowed from the Saline River, and it is all claimed by appellant to be undesirable from all standpoints, having no advantages, natural or otherwise.
Appellant prior to January 1, 1930, had disposed of 780 acres of the original tract, leaving him the owner of 6408.28, which he was required to assess at that time.
He stated he was thoroughly familiar with all his land, having cruised each separate 40-acre tract thereof, and made and delivered to H. L. Rowland, assessor of Bradley County an itemized report of his lands, tract by tract, showing its description, its full value and the amount at which he proposed to assess it, fifty per cent. of the value of the land, in accordance with the rule adopted in that county. The assessment placed upon the land by the assessor in each instance in dollars being actually 2 1/2 times the acreage of the tract.
A summary of the market value shown by the appellant to each separate tract gave 4031.28 acres at $ 1 per acre, 160 acres at $ 1.25, 826.46 at $ 2, 575.13 at $ 2.50, 736.41 at $ 5 and 80 acres at $ 10 per acre. The lands were assessed at $ 2.50 per acre by the assessor, and appellant appealed to the board of equalization to reduce the assessment, and, being denied any relief by the board, which approved the assessment, he appealed to the county court, which likewise refused to lower the assessment, and he then appealed to the circuit court where, on trial by the court, the same judgment was entered, from which this appeal comes.
On the hearing, it appeared from the testimony of several witnesses that most of the Hayward lands are low and wet, with no good roads to or through it, cut-over lands practically denuded of timber and not well adapted to the production of second growth of timber. They stated that the lands were not worth more than $ 1 or $ 1.25 per acre, except one 80-acre tract that most of the tract was not available for farming, and would never be.
It was also shown that the lands were sold originally for $ 1 per acre "because the seller needed the money, rather than because of that price being regarded the market value." Also that appellant had realized by the sale of some of the lands and the leasing of others about $ 13,000 since his purchase of the tract. That some of the leases for oil development were paying more rental than the taxes on the entire tract of land at the time of this assessment. That there were 245,000 acres of cut-over lands in Bradley County owned by the two big mill companies and about 30,000 of it being wet and subject to overflow somewhat like appellants', all of which was assessed at $ 2.50 per acre which was testified to by four witnesses to be a fair valuation for assessment of the lands of appellant.
One of these witnesses, H. L. Rowland, the assessor of the county serving his fourth term and familiar with the value of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henderson v. La Capra
...and not convenience. 19 C.J. Sec. 111, p. 919; 28 C.J.S. Easements Sec. 35; Mahnken v. Gillespie, supra, 329 Mo. , loc. cit. 60, 61, 43 S.W.2d 737 [loc. cit.]; Bussmeyer v. Jablonsky, supra, [241 Mo. 681, 145 S.W. 772, 39 L.R.A.,N.S., 'In the Bussmeyer case, supra, the Supreme Court quoted ......
-
Mathis v. Magers
... ... jury is supported by substantial testimony, it will not be ... disturbed on appeal. Hayward v. Rowland, ... 184 Ark. 766, 43 S.W.2d 737; Halliburton v ... Cannon, 160 Ark. 428, 254 S.W. 687; ... Mitchell v ... [86 S.W.2d 172] ... ...
-
Simpson v. Anderson
...Ins. Co. v. Brannan, 184 Ark. 978, 44 S.W.(2d) 346; Little Rock Granite Co. v. Ross, 184 Ark. 667, 43 S.W.(2d) 533; Hayward v. Rowland, 184 Ark. 766, 43 S.W.(2d) 737; Harrison v. Rosensweig, 185 Ark. 281, 47 S.W.(2d) 2; State to Use of Southern Finance Corp. v. Warner, 185 Ark. 610, 48 S.W.......
-
Ritchie Grocer Co. v. W. B. Waller & Co.
...& Co. subsequent to February, 1925, and we cannot say that his finding is not supported by substantial testimony. Hayward v. Rowland, 184 Ark. 766, 43 S.W.(2d) 737; Harrison v. Rosensweig, 185 Ark. 281, 47 S.W.(2d) 2; State v. Warner, 185 Ark. 610, 48 S.W.(2d) Appellant's contention that th......