Reisinger v. Road Improvement District No. 8 of Crittenden County

• Decision Date: 12 April 1920
• Docket Number: 325
• Citation: 220 S.W. 455,143 Ark. 341
• Parties: REISINGER v. ROAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 8 OF CRITTENDEN COUNTY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

220 S.W. 455

143 Ark. 341

REISINGER v. ROAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 8 OF CRITTENDEN COUNTY

No. 325

Supreme Court of Arkansas

April 12, 1920

Appeal from Crittenden Circuit Court; R. H. Dudley, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Berry & Wheeler and R. G. Brown, for appellants.

The assessment of benefits was arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and unlawful. The zone system was adopted and no attention was paid to improvements on the lands in rural districts, but in cities and towns betterments were considered. 130 Ark. 70; 127 Id. 310. The whole scheme of assessments adopted here was "incorrect on its face--a demonstrable mistake." It is impossible to reconcile the discriminations made. 118 Ark. 301; 131 Id. 65; 123 Id. 210; 118 Id. 127; 133 Id. 64; 212 S.W. 334; 205 Id. 894; 1 Page & Jones on Tax. by Assessment, p. 874, § 547. The improvements on rural lands as well as in town should be considered and all assessed alike. The assessment here was discriminatory unequal and void. Supra.

S. V Neelly, for appellees.

1. All the evidence is not in the record, and the judgment should be affirmed. 103 Ark. 205; 77 Id. 195; 74 Id 427, 551; 124 Id. 161.

2. There is nothing to show that the assessments were unjust unequal, arbitrary, exorbitant or discriminatory. The zone system on rural property was adopted and the best methods of assessments were used. 209 S.W. 725; 135 Ark. 149-159; 86 Ark. 1; 78 Id. 1. The evidence sustains the findings of the lower court. 215 S.W. 656; 213 Id. 749; Ib. 725.

MCCULLOCH, C. J. HART, J., dissents.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

By special act No. 55, of the regular session of 1919, the Legislature created three road districts in Crittenden County, numbered, respectively, 7, 8 and 9, for the purpose of improving certain roads in said districts. Separate boards of commissioners were created for each district, and each board was authorized by the statute to construct the improvements and to appraise the benefits on the lands affected by the improvement. The statute provides that the list of benefits assessed shall be returned by the commissioners to the county court, and after publication the court hears complaints of property owners against the correctness of the assessments, and approves or disapproves the same. An appeal is allowed to the circuit court.

The commissioners in each of said districts made the assessments and filed the same in the county court. Appellants are owners of real property in District No. 8, and appeared in the county court and made complaint against the assessments on their property. Appellant Reisinger is the owner of rural property, and the other appellants are owners of urban property in the district. The county court overruled the complaints of appellants, and they appealed to the circuit court, where there was a trial de novo, which resulted in a confirmation of the assessments made by the commissioners. The lower court heard the case on oral testimony and also on maps and plats of the district.

The only questions which can be raised on this appeal are those which relate to the correctness of the assessments. Mo. Pac. Rd. Co. v. Conway County Bridge Dist., 134 Ark. 292, 204 S.W. 630; Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Road Imp. Dist. No. 1 of Prairie County, 137 Ark. 587; Kansas City So. Ry. Co. v. Road Imp. Dist. No. 6 of Little River County, 139 Ark. 424.

The commissioners of each of the three districts were introduced as witnesses and testified concerning the method of arriving at the assessments of benefits, and it appears from the testimony that, while there was a separate assessment in each district, the commissioners of all the districts conferred together and co-operated in ascertaining the correct basis of assessing benefits in all the districts, but this controversy relates entirely to the assessments in District No. 8.

The testimony shows that the commissioners, after repeated conferences and considerations of the questions of benefits, reached the conclusion that what is termed the "zone system" should be adopted with respect to the rural lands, and that they valued the betterments at so much per acre according to zones fixed by distances from the road or roads to be improved. Fifty dollars per acre was the amount assessed on the lands in the first zone, which were those nearest the roads to be improved, and the amount of assessed benefits was diminished as the distance increased by zones, and it appears from the testimony also that the commissioners did not make any distinction in the amount of assessments by reason of differences of the quantity of land in cultivation. Nor was there any increase of the assessments of benefits by reason of value of buildings on a given tract. The urban property was assessed on a different basis, in that the value of buildings was one of the bases for fixing the value of benefits. In other words, as to urban property, the commissioners appraised the actual value of each piece of property with buildings on it and assessed the benefits at one-third of such value.

The chief point of attack against the validity of the assessments is this: That there was a lack of uniformity in that the buildings on urban property increased the assessments on that kind of property, whereas the buildings on rural property were not allowed to increase the value of benefits to rural property, the benefits to which were assessed on the acreage basis.

The decision of the case, however, comes down to the question of legal sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of the trial court. We may differ with the assessing board and the trial court in our conclusion with respect to the correctness and fairness of the assessments, but if there is evidence legally sufficient, tested by well-settled rules, to sustain the findings of the court that the assessments were not arbitrary and demonstrably erroneous, it is the duty of this court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction to affirm the judgment. St. L. & S. F. Rd. Co. v Fort Smith & Van Buren Bridge Dist., 113 Ark. 493, 168 S.W. 1066; C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v....