Patterson v. Road Improvement District No. 3 of Northern District of Woodruff County

Decision Date15 March 1920
Docket Number258
Citation219 S.W. 341,143 Ark. 44
PartiesPATTERSON v. ROAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 3 OF NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WOODRUFF COUNTY
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Woodruff Circuit Court, Northern District; Roy D Campbell, Special Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Gustave Jones, for appellant.

There is no evidence to sustain the assessments or the judgment of the circuit court. The assessment against appellant's farm land (a 32-acre farm tract) is ten times as great as against other lands in the vicinity and his lands are practically worthless. The assessment is arbitrary and unjust. There was really no assessment according to benefits at all, but the assessment was purely arbitrary, speculative and guesswork.

Harry M. Woods, for appellee.

The assessors followed the only reasonable method of assessing lands by dividing it into zones and considering the increase in value by reason of the improvement. There was no conspiracy to impose on appellant, and the judgment is correct.

SMITH J. HART, J. dissenting.

OPINION

SMITH J.

Appellant owns lands in Road Improvement District No. 3 of Woodruff County, and he seeks by this appeal to have his assessments revised and reduced. It appears that a tract of land owned by him was assessed with an excessive acreage; but a proper reduction was made in that respect. The relief prayed, however, in regard to the assessment against the northeast quarter, southeast quarter, section 6, township 5 north, range 2 west, was denied. It appears that this land includes the town of Patterson, and is assessed at the rate of $ 100 per acre.

It appears that Patterson is a small village, but is the junction of the Missouri Pacific and the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific railroads, and these railroads cross in the forty-acre tract above described. As we understand the record, this entire tract has been subdivided into lots and blocks, but, notwithstanding that fact, thirty-two acres of it is in a field and is cultivated as a part of appellant's plantation. No complaint is made against the assessment of the eight acres; but it is said that the assessment of the thirty-two-acre field is arbitrary and excessive.

It was shown, however, that the assessment was made by zones, and it is admitted that all unimproved lots and blocks lying in the same zone as appellant's lots bear the same assessment, and no complaint is made of these assessments; the complaint is that the thirty-two acres should be assessed as farming lands, and not as town lots.

One of the assessors explained that in making this assessment against appellant's lots--as in all other cases--they took the value of the lots as they would be, in their opinion, when the road had been completed, and this enhanced value above the value of the lots without the road was the betterment assessed against each lot or block. It thus appears that no mistake was made in adopting an erroneous basis for the assessment, and as the appeal comes from a judgment of the circuit court approving the assessment it must be affirmed unless we can say the testimony is not legally sufficient to sustain it. Rogers v. Ark. & La. Highway Imp. Dist., 139 Ark. 322; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Monroe County Rd. Imp. Dist., 137 Ark. 568, 209 S.W. 728.

Appellant himself platted the thirty-two acres into lots and blocks, and it is not made to appear from the testimony that the assessors acted arbitrarily in adopting these subdivisions for the purpose of making the assessment. In other words, it is not shown to be arbitrary to adopt appellant's own disposition of the land for purposes of assessment, and when considered as lots and blocks, rather than as an unplatted field, the assessment is uniform with the assessment of other lots and blocks lying in the same zone....

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Sanders v. Wilmans
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 25, 1923
    ...Evidence not sufficient to overturn the assessments, which were regularly made and are presumed to be fair and equitable. 113 Ark. 493; 143 Ark. 44; 143 Ark. 261. proceedings for extending boundaries of the district were regular and lawful, and the assessment of benefits should be sustained......
  • Engles v. Shaffer
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 15, 1920
    ... ... Sebastian Chancery Court, Fort Smith District"; J. V ... Bourland, Chancellor; reversed ... \xC2" ... 382; 19 S.W ...          3. The ... contract of subscription to stock can ... 505 ...          4 ... Patterson was liable. 94 Ark. 499; 97 Id. 748 ... for oil and gas near Scranton, in Logan County, ... Arkansas, and on March 14, 1916, entered ... ...
  • Reisinger v. Road Improvement District No. 8 of Crittenden County
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • April 12, 1920
    ... ... Co. v. Rd. Imp. Dist. No. 6 ... of Little River County, supra; Patterson v ... Road Imp. Dist. No. 3 of Woodruff ... County, 143 Ark. 44; Mo ... ...
  • Lane v. Stitt And Reed
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 15, 1920
    ... ...          3. The ... judgment against appellant is grossly ... Drew County, and the deed executed by appellant to Reed ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT