Vanderford v. Monroe County Road Improvement Dist. No. 4

• Decision Date: 30 October 1922
• Docket Number: (No. 226.)
• Citation: 244 S.W. 448
• Parties: VANDERFORD v. MONROE COUNTY ROAD IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 4.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

244 S.W. 448

VANDERFORD v. MONROE COUNTY ROAD IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 4.

(No. 226.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

October 30, 1922.

Appeal from Monroe Chancery Court; John M. Elliott, Chancellor.

Action by B. H. Vanderford against the Monroe County Road Improvement Dist. No. 4, to try the validity of its organization. From a decree of the chancery court dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Joe P. Melton, of Lonoke, for appellant.

Bogle & Sharp, of Brinkley, for appellee.

McCULLOCH, C. J.

This case involves an attack upon the validity of the organization of a road improvement district in Monroe county created by an order of the county court, made pursuant to the general statutes of the state authorizing the creation of such districts. Acts 1915, p. 1400 (Crawford & Moses' Digest, § 5399 et seq.).

It is alleged as the basis of the attack upon the validity of the proceeding that the petitions prepared by the State Highway Engineer for circulation among the owners of property were altered by the county judge by the erasure of the description of some of the lands described in the petitions, and that the said petitions, as filed, were different in some respects from each other, and also differed from the petitions prepared and filed in the county court by the State Highway Engineer.

This action was instituted and tried in the chancery court of Monroe county, and it is alleged in the complaint that the county judge of Monroe county applied to the State Highway Department for the preparation of preliminary plans, surveys, specifications, and estimates of the cost of the road proposed to be built, and that such plans, specifications, and estimates were prepared and filed; that thereafter the State Highway Engineer prepared, upon request of the county judge, petitions to be circulated among the landowners of the proposed district, and attached to each of the petitions a plat on which the boundaries of the proposed district were plainly indicated; that the petitions contained a description of the lands to be embraced within the district, and "that the petitions of the property owners, as filed in the county court, differed with respect to the boundaries of the district and the description of the lands therein contained from the petitions presented to the Highway Department, and also from the petitions prepared by the Highway Department for circulation among the property owners." It is also alleged that "the lands described in the petition filed by the property owners in the county court also differed from the lands as shown upon the plat, as being within the boundaries of the district; and it is, therefore, impossible to tell whether the property owners, in signing the petition for the formation of the district, wished the district to be formed in accordance with the boundaries as shown upon the plat, or in accordance with the boundaries as described in the petitions."

There was an answer filed, in which it was denied that there was any difference in the petitions actually filed but it was admitted that, after the State Highway Engineer had prepared the petitions in which the lands to be embraced in the district were described, it was determined by the county judge, and others who were interested in the creation of the district, that certain sections of land described in the petitions would not receive benefit from the proposed improvement, and should not be embraced in the petitions, and that the county judge, before the circulation of the petitions, erased those sections from the petitions; that thereafter the petitions were circulated and signed by the property owners, and that the district was formed by order of the county court establishing the boundaries of the district in accordance with the petitions as altered before circulation.

There was oral testimony presented to the court which clearly established the fact that the only change made in the record was the erasure of the description on about seven sections of land from the petitions prepared by the State Highway Engineer, and that these erasures were made before the petitions were circulated among the property owners, and before any of the petitions were signed.

The chancery court, upon a hearing, dismissed the complaint for want of equity, and the only point raised by this appeal is that the changes made by the erasures on the petitions, eliminating certain lands,...