Road Improvement Dist. No. 1 v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 September 1924
• Docket Number: No. 6533.,6533.
• Citation: 2 F.2d 340
• Parties: ROAD IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 1 OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, ARK., et al., v. MISSOURI PAC. R. CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

2 F.2d 340 (1924)

ROAD IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 1 OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, ARK., et al., v. MISSOURI PAC. R. CO.

No. 6533.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

September 29, 1924.

Dave Partain, of Ozark, Ark. (G. C. Carter, of Ozark, Ark., on the brief), for appellants.

Thomas B. Pryor, of Ft. Smith, Ark. (Edward J. White, of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellee.

Before SANBORN and LEWIS, Circuit Judges, and KENNEDY, District Judge.

KENNEDY, District Judge.

This is a suit in equity brought by the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, appellee here, in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas, seeking to restrain the collection of assessments for highway improvements attempted to be put in force and effect by road improvement district No. 1 of Franklin county, Ark., and its commissioners, appellants here. The allegations of plaintiff's bill of complaint were met by answer of the road improvement district and its commissioners, and the case proceeded to a final hearing, upon which the trial court granted a permanent injunction against the collection of the assessment.

The decree of the trial court contains findings in substance that the assessment of the tax in controversy is illegal, unlawful, and therefore unenforceable, in that the assessment against the property of the railroad company is erroneously placed upon a mileage basis, in contradistinction to the assessment against other real estate in the district which is upon an acreage area basis, making the assessment against the railroad company arbitrary and discriminatory and resulting in a denial to the defendant of equal protection of the laws; that no direct benefit on account of the construction of the highway would result to the railroad company, but that any benefit attempted to be shown was indirect, remote, doubtful, and speculative in its nature, and that a purported agreement between the railroad and the commissioners attempting to fix the benefits upon a mileage basis was void.

The road improvement district brings the case here on appeal, alleging error in the court's determination of the controversy as above outlined.

The road improvement district was organized under an act of the Arkansas Legislature, designating commissioners to have charge of the proposed improvement, which was to be assessed and paid for upon the basis of benefits to the real property of the district, and having for its general purpose the construction of a highway across the county of Franklin, shown to be part of a general plan of connecting the cities of Ft. Smith and Little Rock in that state. While the highway does not exactly parallel the railroad, as the railroad follows more directly the course of the Arkansas river, both highway and railroad follow the same general direction through the county, for a distance of some 25 or 30 miles. The evidence shows that the commissioners, with the aid of assessors, made the assessment within the district for the highway improvement which was originally to cost the sum of $230,000. The amount assessed against the railroad property was first a little in excess of $54,000, and when it was found that sufficient would not be raised by the first assessment to complete the highway, an additional assessment of approximately 40 per cent. was levied, making the railroad's entire share of the assessment approximately $75,000. Appropriate steps were taken by the railroad company in the courts to combat the assessment within the time fixed by the act of the Legislature. The state Legislature subsequently passed an act attempting to confirm the assessments as originally made against the property of the railroad company and others, and by a still later act attempted to confirm the additional assessment. After the controversy had arisen, an attempt was made by the railroad company and the commissioners to compromise by suggesting an assessment of $250 a mile instead of approximately $2,300 a mile carried by the original assessment, but such compromise was never effected, apparently on account of some of the interested parties on the part of the district not being willing to accept it.

The evidence taken upon the hearing tends to show that while the assessment against the real property in the created district was upon an acreage value within certain designated distances from the highway, that...