Sale v. Road District No. 16 of Woodruff County

• Decision Date: 22 January 1923
• Docket Number: 99
• Citation: 246 S.W. 843,156 Ark. 501
• Parties: SALE v. ROAD DISTRICT NO. 16 OF WOODRUFF COUNTY
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

246 S.W. 843

156 Ark. 501

SALE v. ROAD DISTRICT NO. 16 OF WOODRUFF COUNTY

No. 99

Supreme Court of Arkansas

January 22, 1923

Appeal from Woodruff Chancery Court, Northern District; A. L Hutchins, Chancellor; affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

R M. Hutchins, Mehaffy, Donham & Mehaffy and E. L Boyce, for appellants.

The whole of the route of the road as laid out by the Legislature does not traverse a public highway, and no proper steps to declare such portion of the route a public highway have been taken. 138 Ark. 549; 147 Ark. 160; 91 Ark. 274; 118 Ark. 125; 89 Ark. 513. Act 183 is void because it includes a portion of White County in the district without providing machinery for the levy and collection of taxes thereon. There are certain lands lying in the district which are not taxed.

The assessments were void and not made in accordance with rules heretofore declared fair and just in 141 Ark. 164; 139 Ark 322; 64 Ark. 265; 86 Ark. 15.

Roy D. Campbell, Harry Woods and Coleman, Robinson & House, for appellees.

The Legislature has discretion in determining the boundaries of a road district. 139 Ark. 153; Id. 431; 213 S.W. 726. The route of the road is along the public highway in its entirety. The assessments were made on the zone basis, taking into consideration all the elements going to show actual benefits, and is in accordance with numerous cases upholding this manner of making assessments. See 141 Ark. 164; 143 Ark. 341; 139 Ark. 322; 135 Ark. 155.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

The road improvement district involved in this controversy is one created by special statute (unpublished) of the extraordinary session of the General Assembly held in January, 1920 authorizing the improvement of a road running from a certain designated street corner in the town of Augusta to the north boundary line of Woodruff County. The route of the road is particularly described, in some instances being designated as the route of a public road, and in other places merely designated by section lines and corners.

This suit was instituted in the chancery court of Woodruff County by appellants, who are the owners of real property in the district, attacking the validity of the organization and also the validity of the assessment of benefits. One of the points of attack is that the route of the road described does not follow the established public road, but the evidence in the case does not bear out this contention. While the calls in the description of the route of the road do not in each instance refer to the road as a public road, the evidence in the case is sufficient to show that it is, in fact, a public road running along the designated route, but that in two or three places the route of the public road has been very slightly shifted for the convenience of travel. These shiftings of the route, however, are slight and are not sufficiently material to be treated as a substantial deviation from the route designated in the statute. In fact, the evidence shows that the designated route conforms to the original route of the public road which will be adhered to as a public highway, notwithstanding the slight shiftings in the places mentioned for the convenience of travel. At any rate, this is not such a deviation of the route of the road as would affect the validity of the project authorized by the statute. Crawford v. Pulaski Road Improvement District No. 10, 154 Ark. 311, 242 S.W. 559.

The next ground of attack on the validity of the organization is that a small tract of land on the west side of White River, and in White County, is included in the boundaries of the district without providing any method for supervision of the assessments in that county.

The boundaries of the district are described in the statute by following section lines or lines of section subdivisions and by following the meanderings of White River at the place where the district is bounded by that stream. White River is the boundary line between White and Woodruff counties, and this district is created as a Woodruff County district, the road to be improved being entirely in Woodruff County, and all of the proceedings are to be conducted in that county. The small tract of land which it is claimed is within the district and in White County, according to the designated boundaries of the district, contains about an acre and a half in area, and the evidence shows that this is merely a sandbar formed in the bend of the river and is submerged at any stage of water above ordinary. However, it is clear from an examination of that part of the statute which describes the boundaries of the district that, if this sandbar be deemed a tract of land, and is in White County, it is an obvious mistake in the designation of the boundary at that place, for the...