Miller v. Seymour

• Decision Date: 18 December 1922
• Docket Number: 51
• Citation: 245 S.W. 811,156 Ark. 273
• Parties: MILLER v. SEYMOUR
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

245 S.W. 811

156 Ark. 273

MILLER v. SEYMOUR

No. 51

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 18, 1922

Appeal from Jefferson Chancery Court; John M. Elliott, Chancellor affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

Rowell & Alexander, for appellants.

The city council had no power to annex to the original district property within the bounds of the original district. The word "contiguous" does not include such lands. 64 Ark 7; 54 Ark. 321; 54 Ark. 335; Black's Law Dic.

Coleman & Gantt, for appellees

The annexation was under authority of § 5733, C. & M. Dig. The word "contiguous" would apply to this land. 130 Ill. 566; 25 R. C. L. 113; 196 P. 481; 70 Ark. 451; 1 C. J 1195; 13 C. J. 110; 54 Ark. 321; 54 Ark. 335; 52 N.W. 951; 80 A. 28; 55 F. 993; 101 N.Y.S. 367; 64 Ark. 7; 70 Ark. 451; 130 N.W. 246; 158 Ill. 64; 143 Ill. 92; 249 Ill. 260.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

A local improvement district has been created in accordance with general statutes (Crawford & Moses' Digest, § 5647 et seq., in the city of Pine Bluff, to improve Pine Street from Harding Avenue on the south to Martin Street on the north, and said improvement is under way. The district included all real property one-half block in width on both sides of Pine Street the full length of the proposed improvement.

Thirteenth Avenue intersects Pine Street at right angles between Harding Avenue and Martin Street, and the city council passed an ordinance annexing certain territory to the original district for the purpose of improving Thirteenth Avenue from Pine Street to Olive Street. This was done on petition of a majority in value of the owners of real property in the annexed territory, pursuant to the terms of the statute which provides that when "a majority in value of the owners of real property in any territory contiguous to any improvement district in any city or town desire that said territory shall be annexed to such improvement district, they may present their petition in writing to the city or town council, and the council shall, after notice," etc., pass an ordinance annexing such territory, and "the improvement petitioned for shall be made by the commissioners." Crawford & Moses' Digest, § 5733.

The annexed territory included all real property one-half block in width on both sides of Thirteenth Avenue the full length of the proposed additional improvement. It is thus seen that the two quarter-blocks at the intersection of Pine Street and Thirteenth Avenue are included in the original district as well as in the annexed territory, and the point of the present controversy is that this is in contravention of the statute, which provides only for the annexation of territory "contiguous" to the original district. Appellant owns real property included in the annexed territory, and he challenges the validity of the annexation on the ground that the proceeding is not in accordance with the terms of the statute. His contention is that the two quarter blocks described above are not "contiguous" to the original district, being in fact embraced within that district.

This contention involves, we think, too narrow an interpretation of the statute, the purpose of which was, manifestly, to provide for annexation of all territory physically affected by the proposed additional improvement. The territory is annexed as a whole, and any property affected by the additional improvement, which must, of course, be connected with the original improvement, is "co...