Mudd v. St. Francis Drainage District

• Decision Date: 08 February 1915
• Docket Number: 160
• Citation: 173 S.W. 825,117 Ark. 30
• Parties: MUDD v. ST. FRANCIS DRAINAGE DISTRICT
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

173 S.W. 825

117 Ark. 30

MUDD v. ST. FRANCIS DRAINAGE DISTRICT

No. 160

Supreme Court of Arkansas

February 8, 1915

Appeal from Clay Chancery Court, Eastern District; Charles D Frierson, Chancellor; affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

L Hunter and Edward D'Arcy, for appellant.

1. An assessment which is not based upon the judgment of the assessor is capricious, arbitrary and void. 37 Cyc. 1009 note 28; 2 Pick. (Mass.) 391; 70 Ia. 87; 47 Mich. 282; Welty on Assessments, 235.

2. The acts of the Legislature, upon which the drainage assessments and taxes in this case are based, are unconstitutional and void, because not based upon the value of the property itself. Const. Ark., art. 16, § 5.

3. An assessment based upon the value of the property itself, and not upon the benefits of the improvement, is legal. 77 Ark 386; 81 Ark. 567; 32 Ark. 31.

4. Act 235 of 1909 is void because by section 7 thereof a large tract of land benefited by the drainage improvement was arbitrarily excluded from the district. Act 196 of 1911, § 1; 48 Ark. 370.

R. H. Dudley, for appellee.

When a land owner appears and objects to the assessment, and the assessment is confirmed, it becomes conclusive and can not be questioned collaterally. 81 Ark. 80; 82 Ark. 75.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

Appellant owns land in Clay County, Arkansas, within the boundaries of the St. Francis Drainage District, and this is an action instituted against him and other land owners by the drainage district to enforce payment of assessments levied for constructing the improvement. The district was created by special act of the General Assembly of 1905, and amended in 1909, and again in 1911. This suit is to recover the assessment levied for the year 1912. The statute as last amended provides for the appointment of an assessor in each country, who is a resident of the county and not the owner of lands within the district, and that such assessor, together with the engineer, shall compose the board of assessors for that county. The act further provides that after the assessments have been made the board of assessors shall meet at the time and place designated in notice for the purpose of hearing complaints of land owners aggrieved by such assessments and for correcting errors therein. It also provides that any land owner may appeal to the county court within twenty days after the meeting of the assessors for the purpose of equalizing the assessments. Appellant challenges the constitutionality of the statute creating the district and also the validity of all the proceedings thereunder.

It is contended that the statute is unconstitutional for the reason that it authorizes assessments upon benefits and not upon the value of the property itself. We have held in many eases that benefit to the land affected by improvement is the only thing which justifies special assessments, and that the provision of the Constitution with reference to ad valorem taxation relates to taxation for general purposes. Uniformity is required in special assessments for local improvements, but there is nothing in the statutes of this State nor in the Constitution requiring that such assessments shall be based upon the value of the property. We have upheld assessments based upon value solely upon the theory that such method of assessment constitutes a legislative determination that benefits will accrue in proportion to the value and that that constitutes, after all, an assessment based upon the value of benefits and not upon the value of the property itself. There is, therefore, no foundation for the argument that the act creating the district is unconstitutional.

It is also contended that the act is void because as originally enacted it omitted lands that were subsequently found to be benefited and included in the district by a later statute. The act of 19.11 extended...