Wilson v. Mattix
| Decision Date | 30 May 1921 |
| Docket Number | 17 |
| Citation | 231 S.W. 197,149 Ark. 23 |
| Parties | WILSON v. MATTIX |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Craighead Circuit Court, Western District; R. H. Dudley Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
H. M Mayes, for appellants.
The motion to dismiss filed in the county court and circuit court was nothing but a demurrer, and admits that the reported cost of improvement as shown by the preliminary survey is less than $ 60,000; that the cost as returned by the commissioners approximated $ 85,000; that the petition alleges and the demurrer admits that the commissioners now undertake to sell bonds in the district in the sum of $ 130,000, which is excessive and prohibitory.
To obtain an outlet for a drainage system, commissioners may construct ditches, do other work on land beyond the jurisdiction of the county court, or which for other reasons can not be included in the district. In that event they shall have the right to condemn a right-of-way for such drain or other construction, and the proceedings shall be the same that are now provided by law for the condemnation of the right-of-way for railroads, telegraphs and telephones. Such a ditch or drain beyond the limits of the district shall be the property of the district, and no person, corporation or other drainage district, not assessed, shall have the right to dig any lateral drain connecting therewith without paying compensation, to be fixed by the circuit court. C. & M Digest, § 3629.
The complaint alleges and the demurrer admits that all of the proceedings of the commissioners should be presented and filed in the county court. A demurrer admits the truth of all the allegations of the complaint. 218 S.W. 381; 141 Ark. 8. The circuit court should have sustained the findings of the county court upon the demurrer filed by appellees, and erred in not so doing.
Basil Baker and Horace Sloan, for appellees.
1. The order of the county court is void, as it had no jurisdiction. It can not act except as empowered by statute. 115 Ark. 130- 9. The grant of jurisdiction to the county court by our Constitution is not self-executing. There must be legislative action. 4 Ark. 473; 28 Id. 359. The county court has no jurisdiction to act unless authorized by statute. C. & M. Digest, §§ 3607, 3655, 3637, 3630.
2. Corporations can not be dissolved by courts, except insofar as the Legislature by statute permits. 81 Ark. 391, 402; Fletcher's Cyc. of Corporations, chap. 64. For a parallel case, see 71 Ark. 4.
3. The county court has no jurisdiction to issue injunctions. 84 Ark. 341. Nor can it cancel contracts. 96 Ark. 251, 263. County courts can not exercise jurisdiction in personam in plenary proceedings of this nature involving third parties except as to the allowance of claims against the county. The jurisdiction of the county court is wholly in rem. 2 Crawford's Digest, "Courts," p. 1275, § 40. The present suit is clearly one in personam.
The county court can not appoint committees of tax payers to take over the affairs of drainage districts.
Nonjoinder of necessary or proper parties defendant may be waived by failure to object at the proper time, but the nonjoinder of an indispensable party defendant leaves the court powerless until he is brought in. C. & M. Dig., § 1101.
4. No cause of action was stated. 83 Ark. 344-6. The validity of the assessment of benefits was settled by order of the county court. As to any errors in assessment, the remedy was by appeal. A collateral attack will not now be permitted. C. & M. Dig., § 3165; 138 Ark. 131.
The validity of the assessment of benefits can not be challenged without setting forth the facts rendering the assessment invalid or improper. 139 Ark. 280.
In this case the complaint does not state what the value of the land will be after the construction and completion of the improvement. The validity of the assessment of benefits can only be challenged in the statutory manner as prescribed by C. & M. Dig., § 3165; 125 Ark. 163-7; 139 Id. 282.
An error in the estimate cost does not vitiate an assessment of benefits. 213 Pa.St. 123; 62 A. 516; 176 N.W. 373. See, also, 137 Ark. 354, 365; 86 Id. 46.
This is a proceeding instituted in the county court of Craighead County to dissolve a drainage district which had been previously organized pursuant to the general statute providing for the organization of such districts by an order of the county court. Crawford & Moses' Digest, sections 3607 et seq.
Appellants are the owners of real property in the district, and, after the district had been organized and put into operation by the assessment of benefits, issuance of bonds, the letting of a contract for the construction of the improvement and after the work of constructing the improvement had been begun, they filed their petition in the county court praying for an order of the court dissolving the district. They alleged, in substance, that the lands in the district were generally uncultivated and of little value, that the cost of the construction of the improvement when considered in comparison with the value of the lands was prohibitive, and that the imposition of the tax on the land would be so burdensome, as to constitute confiscation of the property, and that the commissioners had increased the cost from the sum of $ 60,000, as first estimated, to the sum of $ 130,000, as finally estimated as the actual cost of the construction. It was further alleged in the petition that the commissioners were proceeding with the construction of the drainage ditch without first obtaining an outlet for the discharge of the water. There was also a general allegation that the improvement, as contracted for, is improvident, and will not result in the benefit of the property in the district. There are other allegations not of sufficient importance to mention.
The commissioners of the district appeared by their attorneys as parties for the purpose of resisting the order of dissolution, and on the hearing the county court made an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lamberson v. Board of Commissioners of Drainage District No. 16
...with reference to a pending appeal, that the county court had no jurisdiction to dissolve or abandon a drainage district. Wilson v. Mattix, 149 Ark. 23. allegations as to the validity of the assessments of benefits attempt to raise issues that cannot properly be invoked in this proceeding, ......
- Gregg v. Sanders
-
Roberts v. Baucum Drainage Dist., 4-5577.
...court. We do not think so because a trial de novo on that proposition was unnecessary. This court decided in the case of Wilson v. Mattix, 149 Ark. 23, 231 S.W. 197, 198, that the county court was without authority to dissolve a drainage district after it has been organized and sustained a ......
-
Roberts v. Baucum Drainage District
...As far as applications by landowners in the district are concerned, the statute is just the same now as it was when the decision of Wilson v. Mattix, supra, handed down by this court. Appellant contends, however, that he was entitled to a trial de novo in the circuit court on the question o......