Mullins v. City of Little Rock

• Decision Date: 06 July 1914
• Docket Number: 99
• Citation: 168 S.W. 1074,113 Ark. 590
• Parties: MULLINS v. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

168 S.W. 1074

113 Ark. 590

MULLINS v. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK

No. 99

Supreme Court of Arkansas

July 6, 1914

Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; John E. Martineau, Chancellor reversed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

The city council of Little Rock, upon a proper petition of the real estate owners in a certain locality, passed an ordinance laying off the territory described and creating Bridge District No. 1 for the purpose of aiding the county in building a free bridge across the Arkansas River, a navigable stream more than 400 feet in width, the middle of which is the boundary line between the cities of Little Rock and Argenta, one end of the bridge to be located on Broadway Street, in the city of Little Rock, and the other in the city of Argenta, Pulaski County.

Appellant the owner of property within the proposed district, brought suit to restrain further proceedings in the creation of the district and construction of the proposed improvement. The validity of the ordinance is challenged, because the improvement contemplated is for the purpose of aiding the county in building a bridge across the Arkansas River, one end of which is to be in the city of Argenta, and not in the bridge improvement district, and because the proposed plan of aiding the county is but a subterfuge for the purpose of building a bridge across the Arkansas River, a part of which must necessarily be beyond the limits of the improvement district. The chancellor sustained a demurrer to the complaint, and the plaintiff refusing to plead further, the court dismissed it for want of equity.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

R. E Wiley and Marvin Harris, for appellant.

1. An improvement district can not be formed to aid some other person or body to make an improvement. Kirby's Dig §§ 5672, 5676, 5718, 549.

2. An improvement district can not be lawfully formed to aid in making an improvement, part of which is without the city limits. Page & Jones, Taxation by Assessment, § 365; Kirby's Dig., § 5664; 50 Ark. 116; 81 Ark. 286; 67 Ark. 37.

3. Only those improvements which are local are authorized to be constructed by municipal improvement districts under the terms of the Constitution. Const. 1874, art. 19, § 27; 67 Ark. 37-39; Hamilton on Special Assessments, § 237; 29 Wis. 599.

J. W. Mehaffy and Rose, Hemingway, Cantrell & Loughborough, for appellee.

We think the questions involved here have been settled by former decisions of this court. 96 Ark. 410; 104 Ark. 425; Ferguson v. McLain, ms. op.; 97 Ark. 334; 70 Ark. 451. See also 52 N.E. 212.

Appellant objects that the districts can not be formed to aid the county to do the work; but there is no good reason for the distinction sought to be established.

If the district can accomplish the end sought at less expense and more effectively through co-operation with the county, why should such co-operation be forbidden?

OPINION

KIRBY, J., (after stating the facts).

The statute authorizes the organization of any particular locality in a city or incorporated town into an improvement district, and assessment of the real property therein for the purpose of constructing any local improvement of a public nature in the manner set forth therein. It provides for the appointment by the council of three persons, owners of real property in the district, who shall compose a board of improvement for it, and this board is required to form plans for the improvement in accordance with the prayer of the petition, and procure estimates of the cost thereof, and to construct and complete the improvement in accordance with the ordinance providing therefor and the law relating thereto. Kirby's Digest, §§ 5664-5742.

The statute also provides that the boards of improvement for such districts "shall have control of the construction of the improvements in their districts." Kirby's...