Wood v. Willey
| Decision Date | 07 July 1919 |
| Docket Number | 79 |
| Citation | 214 S.W. 47,139 Ark. 586 |
| Parties | WOOD v. WILLEY et al., COMMISSIONERS |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Lincoln Chancery Court; John M. Elliott, Chancellor reversed.
Decree reversed and cause remanded.
John F Clifford, for appellant.
The act is void; the district embraces lands not only in Lincoln County but in Jefferson County. This is a legislative finding that the Jefferson lands will be benefited and the lands should be taxed also. 48 Ark. 370; 86 Id. 231. The county court of Lincoln County cannot tax lands outside the limits of that county. 115 Ark. 438. If it could levy the tax, no machinery is provided for getting the tax extended on the tax books of Jefferson County, nor for issuing a warrant to collect.
Rose Hemingway, Cantrell & Loughborough, for appellee.
1. The act furnishes adequate working machinery by which the purpose of the Legislature can be carried out. Any person or body of persons can levy a tax if selected as an agency by the Legislature. This is purely a ministerial function. 111 Ark 150; 96 Id. 410; 104 Id. 425.
2. The county court of Lincoln County can be invested with the power to levy taxes, even in Jefferson County. Cases supra. There is no defect in the act.
OPINION
An act was passed at the 1919 session of the General Assembly entitled "An act to create Grady and Arkansas River Road Improvement District of Lincoln and Jefferson Counties." Acts 1919, No. 509, 2 Vol. Road Laws, p. 2009. The act defines the territory which would be benefited by the proposed improvement, the bulk of the lands being in Lincoln County and the remainder in Jefferson County. Appellant is the owner of property in the proposed district and brought this suit to restrain the commissioners of the district from issuing bonds to construct the roads there proposed. The basis of his attack on the act is that there is a legislative finding that the lands described, which lie in both counties will be benefited but provision is made only for taxing the lands in Lincoln County.
Counsel for appellant says that the act creating the district was evidently prepared with the view to embracing only lands in Lincoln County and that it was afterwards amended to include lands in Jefferson County without an alteration of its structure, and that in consequence it fails to make provision for taxing the lands in Jefferson County or collecting the tax if levied. Without conceding this to be true, counsel for the commissioners contend that it is immaterial, if true, as adequate machinery was provided by the act to enforce the payment of the tax against the lands in each of the counties.
Section 9 of the act provides that the county court shall, at the time that the assessment of benefits is filed, enter upon its records an order, which shall have all the force of a judgment, providing that there shall be assessed upon the real property of the district a tax sufficient to pay the estimated cost of the improvement; and counsel for the district says that this section authorizes the county courts of the respective counties to levy the proportionate part of the tax to be paid by the lands in each county, and, second, that if this be not true, and if only the county court of Lincoln County is authorized to levy the tax, the act should not be held invalid on that account, as the Legislature might authorize any person of sound mind to levy the tax and could, therefore, constitute the county court of Lincoln County as an agency with that authority. The correctness of these contentions present the issues to be decided.
There is every indication that this act was drawn originally to embrace only lands in Lincoln County and that it was amended to include lands in Jefferson County without an alteration of its structure as contended by counsel for appellant. For instance, section 4 provides that the commissioners shall file their plans, after they have been approved by the State Highway Department, with the county...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
House v. Road Improvement District No. 4
...known as the Alexander Road Law. Acts of 1915, p. 1400. The case called for the application of the rule laid down in Wood v. Willey, 139 Ark. 586, 214 S.W. 47. In that case it was held that an act of the General of 1919 intending to create the Grady and Arkansas River Road Improvement Distr......
- Dunaway v. Galbraith
-
Mitchell v. Jimmerson
...appellant. Act 111 (1923) creating the Central District did not repeal or destroy Act 209 (1920) creating Road District 15. The case in 139 Ark. 586, relied upon by appellee, is not decisive of issue here, as that case involved lands in different counties, where no provision was made for th......
-
House v. Road Improvement Dist. No. 4
...known as the Alexander Road Law. Acts of 1915, p. 1400. The case called for the application of the rule laid down in Wood v. Willey, 139 Ark. 586, 214 S. W. 47. In that case it was held that an act of the General Assembly of 1919, intending to create the Grady and Arkansas river road improv......