Parkview Land Co. v. Road Improvement Dist. No. 1.
Decision Date | 25 October 1909 |
Citation | 122 S.W. 241 |
Parties | PARKVIEW LAND CO. v. ROAD IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 1 OF JEFFERSON COUNTY. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jefferson Chancery Court; J. M. Elliott, Chancellor.
Action by the Parkview Land Company against the Road Improvement District No. 1 of Jefferson County. Decree of dismissal, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Daniel Taylor, for appellant. Taylor & Jones and W. F. Coleman, for appellee.
The Parkview Land Company brought suit in the Jefferson chancery court against Road Improvement District No. 1 of Jefferson County, the directors thereof, and Citizens' Bank. It alleged in its complaint: That it is the owner of certain lands in Jefferson county, and that the same are situate within the boundaries of Road Improvement District No. 1, "which was formed under Act No. 247, p. 568, Acts 1907, and in conformity with the provisions thereof, for the purpose of constructing about eight miles of macadam and gravel road within the district, assessing the cost thereof against the real property benefited in the district.
The defendants answered, and denied "that the act conflicts with the provisions of the Constitution. They stated that the improvement contemplated and as actually made was for the purpose of improving a county road in Jefferson county, already in existence, by the construction of what is known as a macadam or gravel road over, upon, and along such county road as mentioned in the complaint for a distance of about eight miles between the terminal points on the county road as stated; that no part of the road is a new road, nor was it contemplated that any portion of such improvement should involve the laying out or establishing of any new public road or any portion thereof whatsoever.
"They denied that the bonds, assessment of betterments, and levy of taxes now claimed and purporting to be a lien on plaintiff's lands are invalid."
The court found that "the improvements contemplated by the formation of road improvement district No. 1, and as actually made thereunder, were solely for the purpose of improving a county road in Jefferson county, Ark., already in existence, and which county road is an old and established county road of the county, and has been for many years, and that the road so improved is in no part a new road, nor was it contemplated that any portion of such improvement should involve the laying out or establishing of any new public road, or any portion thereof whatsoever," and dismissed the complaint for want of equity. The evidence sustained the findings of the court. Plaintiff appealed.
Appellant contends that Act No. 247, of the Acts of General Assembly of 1907, under which Improvement District No. 1 was formed, is unconstitutional, because it is in conflict with section 28 of article 7 of the Constitution, which is as follows: "The county courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters relating to county taxes, roads, bridges, ferries, paupers, bastardy, vagrants, the apprenticeship of minors, the disbursement of money for county purposes and in every other case that may be necessary to the internal improvement and local concerns of the respective counties. * * *"
Act No. 247 is, in part, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial- Parkview Land Co. v. Road Improvement District No. 1
-
Rhodes v. Barton
...7, section 28, Constitution, is not self-executing. The Legislature has power to prescribe how roads shall be built and improved. 92 Ark. 93; 122 S.W. 241; 117 Id. 89 Ark. 513; 118 Id. 119; 176 S.W. 676. The cases cited by appellant are not in point. The Legislature can designate a road to ......
-
Heinemann v. Sweatt
...independent, and it can be seen that the lawmakers would have enacted the remaining part of the statute. Parkview Land Co. v. Road Improvement District No. 1, 92 Ark. 93, 122 S. W. 241, is a typical case announcing that The doctrine cannot be applied, however, in a case like this, which aff......