Rowekamp v. Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Co.
Decision Date | 04 September 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 9886.,9886. |
Citation | 72 F.2d 852 |
Parties | ROWEKAMP et al. v. MERCANTILE-COMMERCE BANK & TRUST CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Henry Davis, of St. Louis, Mo. (Thomas S. McPheeters and Bryan, Williams, Cave & McPheeters, all of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellants Frank Rowekamp et al.
J. F. Loughborough, of Little Rock, Ark. (George B. Rose, D. H. Cantrell, A. W. Dobyns, and A. F. House, all of Little Rock, Ark., on the brief), for appellant Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Co.
Truman Post Young, of St. Louis, Mo. (John M. Holmes and Thompson, Mitchell, Thompson & Young, all of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellees.
Before GARDNER, WOODROUGH, and VAN VALKENBURGH, Circuit Judges.
In proceedings not here involved, the lower court, pursuant to statutory provision of the state of Arkansas, appointed a receiver for the Southeast Arkansas levee district, a public corporation organized and existing under the laws of Arkansas. The ground for the appointment of a receiver recognized by the Arkansas statutes was the default in payment of certain obligations of the district. The question of the liability of the district to the various owners and holders of bonds of the district was presented to the lower court by intervening petitions and cross-petitions.
There is in the hands of the receiver approximately $100,000 of money available for payment on these obligations, and the only question involved is that of priority. The facts giving rise to this controversy are as follows:
The Southeast Arkansas levee district was created by act of the Arkansas Legislature in 1917 (Acts 1917, p. 367). It absorbed and merged certain other then existing levee districts, each of which had been created by legislative enactment authorizing it to sue and to be sued, and to construct and maintain levees against the waters of the Arkansas and Mississippi rivers. This district as created included, not only the lands situated within the boundaries of its predecessor districts, but also other lands not theretofore included in any levee district. These districts were called the Chicot levee district, the Linwood and Auburn levee district, the Red Fork levee district, and the Desha levee district.
Prior to the creation of the Southeast Arkansas levee district, these predecessor districts had each issued bonds, and the Southeast Arkansas levee district, upon and subsequent to its creation, issued successive series of bonds. These bonded obligations may be classified as follows:
(1) Bonds issued by the predecessor levee districts prior to the creation of the Southeast Arkansas levee district by Act No. 83 of the 1917 Session Laws (page 367), which act absorbed and incorporated these prior districts into the Southeast Arkansas levee district. All of these predecessor levee districts, except the Desha levee district, had outstanding bonds that are now in default as to principal and interest. The acts relating to the Linwood and Auburn levee district and the Chicot levee district pledged the first revenues for payment of the bonds. The act creating the Red Fork levee district authorized the directors to pledge and collect the revenue, and an instrument of pledge was accordingly executed by that district. The tax levied in the Red Fork levee district was fixed at 2 per cent. of the assessed value; in the Linwood and Auburn levee district at not exceeding one-half of 1 per cent.; while in the Chicot levee district it was made the duty of the board of levee inspectors to vote and have levied annually a sufficient percentage of tax to pay the annual interest on the bonds, and to produce at least $4,000 annually in a sinking fund to pay the bonds at maturity.
(2) Bonds issued under Act No. 83, of 1917 (page 367), creating the Southeast Arkansas levee district. This act provided that the new district should assume and pay all the legal obligations of the four predecessor levee districts. Section 4. It contained the following pertinent provisions:
On January 1, 1918, $600,000 of bonds were issued by the district, of which $342,000 were outstanding at the time of trial.
The act (section 8, p. 376) provided that benefited property within the district should be taxed annually to pay the obligations, as follows: (1) Agricultural lands, 10 cents per acre; (2) town real estate, 10 mills on the dollar of the assessed value as assessed for state and county taxes; (3) railroad rights of way and roadbeds, $125 per mile; (4) tramways, $25 per mile; (5) telephone, telegraph, and electric light and power lines and pipe lines, 10 mills on the assessed value...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Willard v. Morton
... ... 641; Brownell Company v. Nixon, (Ind.) 92 N.E. 693; ... Savings Bank v. Fletcher Company, 186 N.E. 360; ... Board of Commissioners v. Board ... Savings Bank & Trust Company v. Tucker, (La.) 161 So ... 759; Balaam v. Savings & Loan ... 725, 62 S.W.2d 10. It was ... followed in Rowekamp v. Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust ... Co., 72 F.2d 852 (C. C. A. 8th ... ...
-
In re Drainage Dist. No. 7
...W. B. Worthen Co., 154 Ark. 444, 243 S.W. 822; Howe v. Long Prairie Levee Dist., 187 Ark. 725, 62 S.W.2d 10; Rowekamp v. Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Co., 8 Cir., 72 F.2d 852. In the latter case the case of St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Franklin-American Trust Co., 8 Cir., 52 F.2d 431, 8......
-
Women's Catholic Order of F. v. Special School Dist., 11444.
...Prairie Levee Dist., 187 Ark. 725, 62 S.W.2d 10; McNear v. Little Red River Levee Dist., 8 Cir., 293 F. 717; Rowekamp v. Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Co., 8 Cir., 72 F.2d 852; Luehrmann v. Drainage Dist. No. 7, 8 Cir., 104 F.2d 696 opinion filed June 13, 1939. On this phase of the case,......
-
Pudlik v. Public Service Company of Colorado, Civ. No. 5927.
...S.Ct. 613, 67 L.Ed. 1065; Larson v. State of South Dakota, 1929, 278 U.S. 429, 49 S.Ct. 196, 73 L.Ed. 441; Rowekamp v. Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Co., 8 Cir., 1934, 72 F.2d 852. See also cases collected at Note 9 to U.S.C.A.Const. Art. 1, Sec. 10, Cl. 1 (Impairment of Contracts). Sinc......