Marshall v. Baugh

• Decision Date: 04 March 1918
• Docket Number: 193
• Citation: 201 S.W. 808,133 Ark. 64
• Parties: MARSHALL v. BAUGH
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

201 S.W. 808

133 Ark. 64

MARSHALL v. BAUGH

No. 193

Supreme Court of Arkansas

March 4, 1918

Appeal from St. Francis Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson Chancellor; affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

Mann Bussey & Mann, for appellants.

1. The act embraces territory outside the district.

2. The act was not properly passed.

3. Benefits were not properly assessed. The action of the commissioners was arbitrary and unequal.

Morrow & Harrelson, for appellees.

1. The act is valid. No lands outside the district were included. 130 Ark. 70; 92 Ark. 99.

2. The act was properly passed by both Senate and House. The journals show this.

3. The method of assessing benefits does not affect the validity of the act or district.

S. S Hargraves, for districts 1 and 2.

1. The act was legally passed and is not invalid. 103 Ark. 110.

2. The findings of the chancellor are correct.

OPINION

McCULLOCH, C. J.

A special statute creating three separate road districts in St Francis County was enacted by the General Assembly of 1917. Each of the districts covers separate territory and was created to improve certain roads. One district covers all of the county west of the St. Francis river, and certain public roads therein are to be improved. Another district covers the territory east of the St. Francis river and north of the line of railroad of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company. Certain public roads are to be improved in that district. The third district covers the territory east of the St. Francis river and south of the line of said railroad. The three districts are entirely separate and distinct, each for the improvement of different roads, which are to be improved at the expense of property owners in the respective districts. An attack is made in this suit on the validity of the statute and the proceedings thereunder so far as relates to the third district.

The first point of attack is that the statute was not legally enacted for the reason that the journals of the House of Representatives fail to show that it was read on different days. The only defect in the legislative records concerning the passage of this bill is that the journals of the House, where the bill originated, do not give the correct number of the bill showing its third reading and final passage. The bill was numbered 346, and the journals of the House show that it was introduced and on a certain day read twice, the rules being suspended, but on another day's proceedings it appears that House Bill No. 246 was read the third time and placed on its final passage, and passed. The journals of the House properly recited the title of the bill, and the only defect was in stating the number. There is a slight discrepancy in the Senate journals concerning the correct title of the bill, but this, as well as the error in the House journals as to the number of the bill, merely constituted a clerical misprision, which does not affect the validity of the statute, as an examination of the whole of the legislative records show very clearly that every constitutional requirement was observed in the passage of the bill through both houses of the Legislature. Butler v. Kavanaugh, 103 Ark. 109; The Mechanics' Building & Loan Association v. Coffman, 110 Ark. 269, 162 S.W. 1090.

It is next contended that the statute is void so far as it relates to this district because it authorizes the construction of a road extending outside of the territorial boundaries of the district. The designation of the road in question is in the following language:

"Also the public road beginning at a point where the road from Madison through Widener to the Crittenden county line crosses the line between township 5 north, range 4 east, and township 5 north, range 5 east, thence in a northerly direction through sections 25, 24, 13, 12, 1, township 5 north, range 4 east; sections 30, 18, 7, 6, township 5 north, range 5 east and terminating at a point on the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway at or near the town of Round Pond." Acts of 1917, Vol. 1, page 819.

All of the sections of land described above lie south of the railroad and are in the district, except section 1, in township 5 north, range 4...