Mullins v. Commissioners of Bridge Improv. Dist. No. 2

• Decision Date: 12 October 1914
• Docket Number: (No. 168.)
• Parties: MULLINS v. COMMISSIONERS OF BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 2.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 65

170 S.W. 65

MULLINS v. COMMISSIONERS OF BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 2.

(No. 168.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

October 12, 1914.

Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Jno. E. Martineau, Chancellor.

Injunction by J. F. Mullins against the Commissioners of Bridge Improvement District No. 2. From the overruling of the demurrer to the answer plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and cause remanded, with directions.

The owners of real property in the vicinity of Broadway street in the city of Little Rock desired to secure the building of a bridge across the Arkansas river at the foot of that street. To this end they organized an improvement district for the purpose of assisting the county of Pulaski in its construction. The validity of that district was passed upon by this court in the case of Mullins v. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Little Rock, 168 S. W. 1074. The proposed bridge connected the cities of Little Rock and Argenta, which are separated by the Arkansas river, the center of that stream being the boundary between those cities. It was held in that case that the ordinance establishing that district was void. Following this decision, another district has been created for the purpose of constructing this bridge, and the appellant here has sought to enjoin all proceedings under ordinances of the city of Little Rock, which established said improvement district. Attached to the complaint was a copy of the ordinance, from which it appeared that the nature of the improvement to be undertaken was designated as the building of so much of a bridge across the Arkansas river, for the accommodation of vehicles, foot passengers, street cars, and interurban cars, as may be situated within the limits of the district in the city of Little Rock. An answer was filed by the commissioners of the district, who were made defendants, in which it was alleged that no bridge would be built by them under the ordinance creating their district unless arrangements were made for the building of the entire bridge, that part lying within the city of Little Rock to be built by them, while the portion within the city of Argenta was to be built by an improvement district organized in that city, or by the county of Pulaski. Other questions were raised by the pleadings, which we find it unnecessary to discuss. Appellant filed a demurrer to the answer on the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a defense. This demurrer was overruled, and appellant has duly prosecuted his appeal.

R. E. Wiley and Marvin Harris, both of Little Rock, for appellant. Rose, Hemingway, Cantrell, Loughborough & Miles, of Little Rock, for appellee.

SMITH, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The facts in the present case are similar to those in the former case of Mullins v. Mayor and Board of Aldermen, above cited, except that in that case it was the purpose of the improvement district to assist Pulaski county in constructing a bridge across the Arkansas river connecting the cities of Argenta and Little Rock, whereas in the present case it is the purpose of the improvement district to construct that portion of the bridge which lies within the city of Little Rock, that is, to a point in the center of the Arkansas river. We think that, to a large extent, the reasoning of the former case is applicable to the facts of the present case. In the former case it was held that an improvement district could not be lawfully formed to aid Pulaski county to build this bridge across the Arkansas river, because, among other reasons, the control of the construction of the bridge would be in others than the commissioners of the improvement district, whereas the law required the control of improvements made by municipal improvement districts to be in the commissioners of the district, and it was there said:

"The law does not contemplate, and...