Yates v. Phillips

• Decision Date: 23 December 1929
• Docket Number: (No. 61.)
• Citation: 22 S.W.2d 559
• Parties: YATES et al. v. PHILLIPS et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

22 S.W.2d 559

YATES et al. v. PHILLIPS et al.

(No. 61.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

December 23, 1929.

Rehearing Denied January 20, 1930.

Appeal from Clay Chancery Court; J. M. Futrell, Chancellor.

Suit by Mrs. M. S. Yates and others against Joe Phillips and others. Judgment of dismissal, and the plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

H. L. Ponder, of Walnut Ridge, for appellants.

Holifield & Upton, of Rector, and Arthur Sneed, of Piggott, for appellees.

HUMPHREYS, J.

This is a suit brought by appellants against appellees on the 13th day of July, 1928, in the chancery court of Clay county, Eastern district, contesting the validity of the organization and the assessment of benefits in light and power improvement district No. 1 of the city of Rector, upon the alleged ground that the second petition in the organization thereof limited the cost of the improvement to $40,000 instead of limiting the cost thereof to a percentage of the assessed valuation of the property in said district, as shown by the last county assessment in accordance with the terms of Act No. 395, p. 417, of the acts of the Legislature of 1921.

Appellees interposed the defense of the 30 days' statute of limitation to the suit of appellants, as well as other defenses which it is unnecessary to mention.

The cause was submitted to the trial court upon the pleadings and the testimony resulting in a dismissal of appellant's complaint for the want of equity, from which is this appeal.

We think the action is barred by the 30 days' statute of limitation, and for that reason have not set out the other defenses interposed by the appellees nor a summary of the testimony reflected by the record. The district was created on the 26th day of March, 1924, by an ordinance of the city of Rector under authority delegated to it by section 5652 of Crawford & Moses' Digest, and the assessment of benefits was made pursuant to and in accordance with the subsequent sections of the statute pertaining to municipal improvement districts. Property owners in the district are allowed 30 days under section 5652 of Crawford & Moses' Digest to review the action of the city council in creating the district in the chancery court of the county where such city or town lies; and it is provided in section 5668 of Crawford & Moses' Digest that all persons who shall fail to begin legal proceedings within 30 days after the publication of the assessment ordinance for the purpose of correcting or invalidating such assessment of...