Jones v. Lawson
| Decision Date | 22 March 1920 |
| Docket Number | 276 |
| Citation | 220 S.W. 311,143 Ark. 83 |
| Parties | JONES v. LAWSON |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Boone Chancery Court; B. F. McMahan, Chancellor affirmed.
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
Appellees who were the plaintiffs below, are directors of Common School District No. 31 in Boone County, Arkansas, and appellants who are the defendants below, claim to be directors of a special school district created at the regular 1919 session of the General Assembly.
Appellants claiming to act under the authority conferred upon them by Act 637 of the regular session of the 1919 General Assembly, took possession of the schoolhouse and lands of Common School District No. 31 and advertised them for sale. Appellees brought this suit in equity to enjoin them from making the sale on the ground that the act under which they were proceeding was void for uncertainty in defining the boundaries of the special school district.
The chancellor found the issues in favor of appellees, and a decree was entered enjoining appellants from selling or otherwise interfering with the possession of the schoolhouse and lands of Common School District No. 31. The case is here on appeal.
Decree affirmed.
John I. Worthington and Troy Pace, for appellants.
The Legislature committed an obvious error in describing the boundaries of the district, and the act is not void. Such error can be judicially ascertained and declared. Courts take judicial notice of the location of boundary lines between counties and of towns. 15 R. C. L., §§ 19, 20; 86 Ark. 172; 68 Id. 289; 53 Id. 46; 58 Ark. 113. It is evident the Legislature intended to use a township and range other than the one used. 48 Ark. 305-308. The intention of the Legislature should be carried out by the courts, and the intention must be sought in the whole act taken together and other acts in pari materia and if plain and unambiguous the intention prevails. 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 409-414.
E. G. Mitchell and Guy Trimble, for appellee.
1. The act describes the district fully. The original district is still incorporated under a good description. The trial court was not authorized to make over the act and this court should not reverse. 122 Ark. 498; 130 Id. 72; 105 Id. 391; 104 Id. 596; 117 U.S. 567. See also 130 Ark. 73.
2. The doctrine of in pari materia is not conclusive and should not be applied. 135 Ark. 301. The chancellor reached the proper conclusion and followed our own decisions.
HART, J. (after stating the facts).
Counsel for appellants base their right to a reversal of the decree solely on the ground that the Legislature committed a clerical error in describing the boundaries of Alpena Special School District in Boone and Carroll Counties, Arkansas. See Special Acts of Arkansas, 1919, p. 896.
Section 1 creates Alpena Special School District. It provides that the following territory in Boone and Carroll Counties, Arkansas, to-wit: Beginning on the Boone County line one quarter of a mile south of the northwest corner of section 14, in township 20 north, range 23 west, running east one quarter of a mile, etc., thence north to the place of beginning, all the territory in the above be, and the same is, hereby organized into a special school district known as the Alpena Special School District. As a matter of fact one quarter of a mile south of the northwest corner of section 14 in township 20 north, range 23 west, is not on the line between Boone and Carroll counties, but is some distance away from the boundary line between the two counties and lies wholly within Carroll County. The town of Alpena is situated in section 23, township 19 north, range 22 west, and this is on the boundary line between the two counties.
Appellants contend that the Legislature intended to organize the territory surrounding the town of Alpena which includes Common School District No. 31 into a special school district and that, by mistake of the draftsman of the bill, lands in township 20 north, range 23 west, were inserted in the bill, instead of township 19 north, range 22 west. They rely on the case of Harrison v. Abington, 140 Ark. 115, 215 S.W. 255. There the court held that a special act creating a road improvement district was not void because of legislative mistake in describing a bridge at which the improvement of the road was to commence as being in section 26 of a certain township, when in fact the bridge was situated in section 28. In that act the Legislature described a road running from Pope Mill bridge, over Cypress...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Floyd v. Miller Lumber Company
...Ark. 612. Act 681 can take the place of § 5, act 118, but as an addition thereto would be unconstitutional. 132 Ark. 128; 154 Ark. 218; 143 Ark. 83; 138 Ark. 459. Act No. 118 provides a privilege and not property tax, and is a valid enactment. Section 5, art. 16, Constitution 1874. 1 Ark. 5......
-
Ford v. Plum Bayou Road Improvement District
...gap in the district of half a mile in the south half of sections 1, 2 and 3, township 3 south, range 10 west. 130 Ark. 70; 139 Ark. 574; 143 Ark. 83. The testimony of a representative in Legislature as to what was intended by an amendment to a bill is not admissible. 66 Ark. 466; 76 Ark. 19......
-
Bacon v. Road Improvement District No. 1
...The boundaries of such districts must be as accurately and definitely specified as is required for a valid deed. 71 Ark. 211; 106 Ark. 83; 143 Ark. 83; 144 240, 244; 122 Ark. 491; 139 Ark. 574; 130 Ark. 70. The Legislature by the curative act, vol. 1, Road Acts 1919, p. 201, made no change ......
-
Arkansas Railroad Commission v. Stout Lumber Company
...to the Constitution by reenacting § 5 of the original act, with such ingrafted provision incorporated therein. 132 Ark. 28; 154 Ark. 218; 143 Ark. 83; 138 Ark. Gaughan & Sifford, for appellee, Stout Lumber Co. 1. It is reasonable, and the court has the right, to ascertain the legislative in......