House v. Road Improvement Dist No of Conway County, Ark Same v. Road Improvement Dist No of Conway County, Ark

• Decision Date: 17 November 1924
• Docket Number: Nos. 92 and 93,s. 92 and 93
• Citation: 45 S.Ct. 60,69 L.Ed. 229,266 U.S. 175
• Parties: HOUSE v. ROAD IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 2 OF CONWAY COUNTY, ARK., et al. SAME v. ROAD IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 5 OF CONWAY COUNTY, ARK., et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

266 U.S. 175

45 S.Ct. 60

69 L.Ed. 229

HOUSE

v ROAD IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 2 OF CONWAY COUNTY,

ARK., et al.

SAME

v. ROAD IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 5 OF CONWAY COUNTY,

ARK., et al.

Nos. 92 and 93.

Argued Oct. 17, 20, 1924.

Decided Nov. 17, 1924.

Messrs. Joseph M. Hill and Henry L. Fitzhugh, both of Fort Smith, Ark., for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. S. Lasker Ehrman, D. H. Cantrell, and J. F. Loughborough, all of Little Rock, Ark., W. P. Strait, of Morrillton, Ark., and A. W. Dobyns, of Little Rock, Ark., for defendant in error Road Improvement Dist. No. 2.

Messrs. George B. Rose, D. H. Cantrell, and J. F. Loughborough, all of Little Rock, Ark., W. P. Strait, of Morrillton, Ark., and A. W. Dobyns, of Little Rock, Ark., for defendant in error Road Improvement Dist. No. 5.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Both of these writs must be dismissed.

No. 92.

The only ground suggested to sustain the writ in this cause is that Act No. 245, Arkansas Legislature of 1919, which established road district No. 2 of Conway county, was duly challenged as repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment. Such a challenge must be distinct and substantial.

The act undertook to create the district with boundaries which include plaintiff's lands and specified the proceedings for assessing benefits to meet necessary costs. Her lands were assessed as provided. Some months thereafter, by a bill in equity, she claimed insufficient notice and asked relief from both assessment and consequent penalties; also that the commissioner's plans should be declared null and she be heard as to the merits of any assessment. She offered to pay any sum the court might find just and equitable.

The bill alleges that the statute authorized and the commissioners gave only 17 days' notice of the assessment, by publication, that she had no actual notice, and that the publication failed sufficiently to describe her lands. For these reasons she maintained the act did not provide due process of law and violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court, having considered the objections, held that the statute allowed twenty-eight days after the first publication during which time petitioner might have objected to the assessment, and declared this was adequate; also that when read in connection with the statute the notice sufficiently described the lands. Plaintiff in error now insists that the act is null because it prescribes insufficient notice and description of the assessed lands.

Accepting ...