Court Opinion

ID: 7812039
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:13:55.615496+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:28:29.717320
License: Public Domain

McCulloch, C. J. The road improvement district which is plaintiff in this action was originally created under the general statutes by an order of the county court on October 7, 1918, but there was a special statute enacted by the General Assembly of 1919, curing irregularities in the organization and establishing the district as a valid road improvement district covering the territory embraced in the original order creating it. The assessments of benefits were completed, a contract was let for the construction of the road, and a great portion of the improvement was constructed — eleven miles of the seventeen-mile length of the proposed road. Bonds in the sum of $130,000 to raise money to pay for the cost of the improvement were also issued and sold subsequent to the enactment of the curative statute referred to above. The present action was instituted by the board of commissioners against all delinquent owners of land in the district, including’ appellants, and an appeal has been prosecuted from the decree of the chancery court decreeing payment of the delinquent assessments and declaring a lien on the lands. Appellants answered, and filed an answer and cross-complaint attacking the validity of the assessments and also the validity of the district itself. So far as concerns the correctness and validity of the assessments, it is sufficient to say that the attack comes too late, since the assessments have been approved and have become final. There were attacks on the validity of the assessments by owners of property who protested against them in apt time, and the cases were brought to this court from the circuit court, where the questions were adjudicated on appeal from the county court. Payne v. Road Imp. Dist., 149 Ark. 491, 152 Ark. 170. On the last appeal of the case we affirmed the judgment of the circuit court approving the assessments. The validity of the district is assailed on the ground that the description of the lands embraced in the district were in many instances so vague that it is impossible to determine what lands were meant to be described, and that the district, for that reason, is void. In the order of the county court creating the district, as well as in the special act of the Legislature curing irregularities and establishing the district, the lands were described by sections and subdivisions thereof, and some of the descriptions specify certain sections “on the left bank of the Saline River”; the lands are described, of course, as being in Howard County. The Saline River forms the boundary between Howard and Sevier coun.ties. These are the descriptions which counsel for appellants insist are insufficient. We are of the opinion, however, that the words of descriptions giving the number of the section and stating that they are on the “left bank of the Saline River” clearly refer to that portion of each section which lies on the east side of the river and is in Howard County. Bush v. Delta Road Imp. Dist., 141 Ark. 247. The General Assembly of 1921 enacted a special statute (act No. 594) excluding from the district about half of the lands originally embraced therein, and the lands thus eliminated from the district had been assessed more than half of the total benefits. It is contended now by counsel for appellants that the effect of this statute was to nullify the district altogether, for the reason that the Legislature had no power to impose the total cost of the improvement on the lands remaining in the district after the exclusion of others. Counsel is correct in the contention that the Legislature had no right to thus enlarge the burden on the lands remaining in the district. This, however, affords no reasons for nullifying the district, but it does afford grounds for declaring the act void. The act is also void as an impairment of the obligation of a contract between the district and its creditors. It is shown by stipulation that, subsequent to the enactment of the curative statute, the larger portion of the •improvement was constructed and that bonds were issued in the sum of $130,000. In the last case which was before us involving the question of the asessments in this case (152 Ark. 170) our attention was called to the act of 1921, supra, but we declined to pass upon its validity for the reason that it was not shown that there had been any indebtedness incurred prior to the passage of the statute. It needs no citation of authorities to support the view that a statute dismembering a district after obligations are incurred constitutes an attempt to impair the obligation of a contract, and is void; that falls within the inhibition of our Constitution which declares that no law shall ever be passed impairing the obligation of contracts. Constitution of 1874, art. II, sec. 17. The attacks upon the validity of the district are therefore unfounded. Decree affirmed.