Hines v. Road Improvement District No. 5 of Faulkner County

• Decision Date: 18 October 1920
• Docket Number: 172
• Citation: 224 S.W. 817,145 Ark. 382
• Parties: HINES v. ROAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 OF FAULKNER COUNTY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

224 S.W. 817

145 Ark. 382

HINES v. ROAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 OF FAULKNER COUNTY

No. 172

Supreme Court of Arkansas

October 18, 1920

Appeal from Faulkner Chancery Court; Jordan Sellers, Chancellor affirmed.

Judgments affirmed.

Thos B. Pryor and Vincent M. Miles, for appellant.

The Legislature adopted an incorrect method of assessing benefits against the railroad company, and the method was arbitrary and erroneous. None of the assessments are uniform based upon benefits, but are purely arbitrary. 117 Ark. 30; 131 Id. 59; 64 Id. 555; 68 Id 376-389; 69, Id. 68-73; 71 Id. 17-27; 86 Id. 1-8.

R. W. Robins, for appellees.

The assessments were not unequal nor arbitrary, nor were they excessive under the law. K. C. So. Ry. Co. v. Imp. Dist. No. 6, 139 Ark. 424; 137 Ark. 587; 72 Ark. 119. There was no discrimination, and the assessments were not excessive.

OPINION

WOOD, J.

Under acts Nos. 148, 239, 372 and 474 of the acts enacted at the special session of the General Assembly of 1919, road improvement districts were created. The real estate in the districts was put into different zones, and a certain percentage of the assessed value of the property, for county and State purposes, was fixed by the Legislature as the amount of benefit to the real property owners in the district. Under the acts the county clerk is directed to compute the tax according to the assessment of benefits made by the Legislature and place the computation in an assessment book, which shall be kept by him as a public record, and there is provision in each of the acts to the effect that any land owner, "deeming himself aggrieved by the assessment of his lands, as shown in the assessment book of said district prepared by the county clerk, shall have the right to apply to the chancery court of Faulkner County for an order correcting any such assessment." Provision is made for notice to be served on the district, and for a hearing of the petition on oral testimony, or depositions, as the court may order, and an appeal may be taken by the party aggrieved from the decree of the court to the Supreme Court.

Separate actions were begun by the appellant against the several districts, under the acts creating them, challenging the correctness of the assessment of benefits. The causes proceeded separately to trial in the lower court upon different testimony in each case. The trial court dismissed the petitions, or complaints, for want of equity, and separate appeals were brought here. These appeals have been consolidated for the purpose of briefing before this court.

The appellant abstracted the evidence adduced at the hearing in No. 6377, District No. 5. The total number of acres in that district is 83,440. The number of acres covered by appellant's right-of-way is 38.13, and the appellant have 2.17 miles of main line track in the district. The road to be improved did not come nearer than seven and one-half or eight miles of appellant's railway line. Witnesses testified on behalf of the appellant that the improvement of the road in this district would be of no direct physical benefit to appellants' railroad; that the benefit could only be indirect and entirely speculative; that any increase in traffic caused by the building of the road would not benefit appellant's property, because, as soon as the revenue derived from the traffic exceeded operating costs plus a fair return upon the value of the property used, State and interstate commerce commissions would reduce the rates so that the earnings could not exceed a fair return upon the physical value of appellant's railroad property; that local public improvements, like the road under consideration, have no effect upon materials and labor, which constitute the physical value of railroad lines.

One of the witnesses for the appellants testified that the value of appellant's line would neither be enhanced nor decreased by the building of these hard-surfaced roads, but, on the contrary, that, in the case of hard-surface roads built parallel to railroads, truck companies had been incorporated and operated in competition with the railroads, thereby making the hard-surface highways a detriment instead of a benefit to the railroad property. On the other hand, testimony on behalf of the appellees tended to prove that the appellant's property would receive a benefit equal to the amount of the assessment of benefits; that the building of these roads would develop the country; that this would increase the traffic on the railroads and thereby increase the physical value of appellants' railroad property, because such property had a greater value in a highly developed country.

One of the witnesses for the appellees testified that he was a civil engineer and had served as county surveyor of Faulkner County; that he was the engineer of each of the road districts involved, and that in his opinion the property of the railroad companies would receive betterments equal to the amount of the assessments in...