Sloan v. Village Creek Drainage Dist.

• Decision Date: 01 November 1926
• Docket Number: (No. 220.)
• Citation: 287 S.W. 380
• Parties: SLOAN et al. v. VILLAGE CREEK DRAINAGE DIST. OF LAWRENCE COUNTY.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

287 S.W. 380

SLOAN et al. v. VILLAGE CREEK DRAINAGE DIST. OF LAWRENCE COUNTY.

(No. 220.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

November 1, 1926.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lawrence County; Dene H. Coleman, Judge.

Action by Clay Sloan and others against the Village Creek Drainage District of Lawrence County. Judgment for defendant, and part of plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Eugene Sloan, of Jonesboro, and Cunningham & Cunningham, H. L. Ponder, and O. C. Blackford, all of Walnut Ridge, for appellants.

W. M. Ponder, W. A. Jackson, W. P. Smith, and G. M. Gibson, all of Walnut Ridge, for appellee.

McCULLOCH, C. J.

The improvement district involved in this controversy was created by special statute, enacted by the General Assembly at the extraordinary session of 1920, and authorized the construction of a drainage system in the area described in Lawrence county and the imposition of taxes upon benefits, in order to raise funds to pay for the improvement. The district embraces nearly 70,000 acres of land, and the authorized plan for the improvement contemplates the construction of a main ditch or canal from 20 to 75 feet in width, through the channel of Village creek for a distance of about 22 miles. The plan also contemplates the construction of six lateral ditches, from 12 to 20 feet in width, through certain creeks or bayous which empty into Village creek. One of the laterals is called Little Village, another Coon creek, another Turkey creek, another Lake pond, another Lindsay creek, and the other the White Oak lateral. The statute provides for an assessment of benefits to be made by the commissioners of the district, and, when the list is filed, notice is given and an opportunity for a hearing in the county court. The statute gives aggrieved owners of property in the district the right of appeal to the circuit court from the decision of the county court.

The commissioners completed their assessment of benefits and filed the list with the county court, notice was given, and a hearing was had in that court. There are about 8,000 calls or items in the assessment list and there were numerous protests. The maximum assessment on lands found to derive the greatest benefit was $24 per acre, and the minimum, $1.50 per acre. The lands bearing the lowest assessment were those which did not overflow from the creek but, according to the testimony adduced in the case, received general benefit on account of the locality being drained.

The county court approved the assessments made by the commissioners, with a few exceptions but 48 owners of land appealed to the circuit court and there was a trial anew in that court. In the trial in the circuit court, the assessments of benefits were again approved with one or two exceptions. Twenty-four of the protesting landowners appealed to this court.

It is contended by counsel for appellee that some of the appeals should be dismissed — two of them for the reason that the transcripts were not lodged in time, and numerous others for the reason that the rules of the court have not been complied with in filing abstracts. We deem it unnecessary to pass upon the question raised on the motion to dismiss the appeal, for the reason that we have reached the conclusion that, even if all the appeals had been perfected and duly prosecuted, the judgment in each instance must be affirmed.

Each of the protests challenges the correctness of...