Prewitt v. Ladd

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HART, J.
• Citation: Prewitt v. Ladd, 215 S.W. 633, 140 Ark. 381 (Ark. 1919)
• Decision Date: 03 November 1919
• Docket Number: 173
• Parties: PREWITT v. LADD

215 S.W. 633

140 Ark. 381

PREWITT v. LADD

No. 173

Supreme Court of Arkansas

November 3, 1919

Appeal from Lincoln Chancery Court; John M. Elliott, Chancellor affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

E. W Brockman, for appellant.

The act is unconstitutional and void because it undertakes to fix the benefits to accrue from the contemplated maintenance of the road at a per cent. of the assessments fixed by the assessors and because it neither definitely fixed the benefits nor left the commissioners free to do so. The section 7 is vague and indefinite. The Legislature exceeded its powers in the act.

Danaher & Danaher, for appellee.

The act is constitutional and the Legislature had the right to determine the benefits would be proportionate. 96 Ark. 410. The decree is correct and should be affirmed.

OPINION

HART, J.

P. H Prewitt brought this suit in equity against E. P. Ladd, T. S Lovett and H. D. Palmer, commissioners of Maintenance District No. 1 of Lincoln County, Arkansas, to enjoin them from assessing benefits on his lands under an act passed by the Legislature of 1919 for the maintenance of a public road in Lincoln County, Arkansas, on the ground that the act is unconstitutional. The plaintiff is the owner of lands within the district and alleges that, unless restrained from doing so, defendants will proceed to make assessments which will become liens upon his lands and proceed to collect the same.

The court sustained a demurrer to the complaint and, the plaintiff declining to plead further, his complaint was dismissed for want of equity. The plaintiff has appealed.

The act complained of is No. 69, and was passed at the regular session of 1919. An improvement district had been originally formed to build a road, and after the road had been constructed the act in question was passed for the purpose of maintaining it. The section which it is claimed is unconstitutional is section 7, and reads as follows: "At their first meeting after the passage of this act, the commissioners shall determine what repairs will be necessary to the roads, culverts and bridges constructed or improved by the original district to put them in a good state of repair and shall make plans for the making of such repairs, subject to the approval of the county court; and, when said plans have been made, the commissioners shall ascertain the benefits that will be derived by the several tracts of land in the district from the making of said repairs and shall equalize the same by fixing such a per cent of the original assessment of benefits as will represent the benefits that will be realized by the lands of the district from the making of said repairs, and shall enter in a book, which they shall provide for this purpose, the assessment of benefits against the several tracts of land in the district which will be realized from the...