Court Opinion

ID: 7814756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:31:44.65141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:34.329904
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice, dissenting. The appellants filed this suit and the appellees demurred; the trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the suit when the appellants elected to stand on the complaint: so the case comes to us on the issue of the sufficiency of the complaint to state a cause of action.1  1 am of the opinion that, when we give the allegations in the complaint the broad and liberal interpretation to which they are entitled, there was enough.alleged in the complaint to state a cause of action and that the demurrer should have been over-ruled. That we do give the allegations in the complaint a broad and liberal interpretation when testing their sufficiency against a demurrer, is well recognized. In Rice v. King, 214 Ark. 813, 218 S. W. 2d 91, Mr. Justice Frank G-. Smith stated the rule: “The sufficiency of this pleading is being tested on demurrer and it was said in the case of Sharp v. Drainage Dist. No. 7, 164 Ark. 306, 261 S. W. 923, that under our code every reasonable intendment and presumption is to be indulged in favor of the pleading and a complaint will not be set aside upon demurrer unless it be so fatally defective that taking all the facts admitted the court can say that they furnish no cause of action2 whatever. ’ ’ This suit presents important questions in the field of improvement district law, and is the first time that Act 371 of 1947 has been before this Court. That Act was an effort to localize to the County level the upkeep of access ditches in multi-county districts; but the Act recognized the necessity of the continuation of the original multi-county district for the upkeep of the main ditches or outlet of the district. To clarify as to terminology: the small ditches leading into the main ditch can be referred to as' access ditches, and the main ditch leading to the outlet of the district is called either the main ditch or the outlet ditch. In the case at bar, the question, whether the ditches involved were outlet ditches or access ditches, seems to me to have been a matter that should have been developed by the evidence. The Tri-County District was organized by the Circuit Court of Crittenden County in or about 1915 and is composed of territory in Cross, Crittenden and St. Francis Counties. In 1948 the East St. Francis Drainage District No. 1 was created (and will be referred to herein as the “St. Francis District”). This St. Francis District was created pursuant to Act 371 of 1947. The complaint in this case alleges that the Tri-County District is proceeding to collect benefits on the lands in St. Francis County bas'ed on the old 1915 assessment of benefits; and that the St. Francis District is attempting to collect benefits on the same lands in St. Francis County based on the 1948 assessment of benefits. As I understand the law, the St. Francis District can collect assessment of benefits for the purpose of keeping up the access ditches in St. Francis County, and the Tri-County District can collect benefits on the lands in St. Francis County only for the purpose of keeping up the main ditches or outlet ditches of the Tri-County District. In other words, the benefits collected on the St. Francis County lands under the 1915 assessment cannot be used — since 1948 — for the purpose of cleaning out or keeping up any of the access ditches in Cross County or Crittenden County. With the above understanding, I come to the allegations in the complaint; and I think these allegations were broad enough to allege that the Tri-County District was seeking to collect benefits from the lands in St. Francis County on the 1915 assessment for the use of cleaning out the keeping up the access ditches in Cross County and Crittenden County. Here are the allegations in the complaint: “13. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant Bast St. Francis Drainage District No. One is now collecting taxes each year upon its purported Assessment as aboye described, and the Defendant, Tri-County Drainage District, is now applying to the Crittenden County Circuit Court for a levy of taxes annually upon its purported Assessment to be expended for the cleaning out and maintenance of the same ditches in St. Francis County together with other of the original ditches in Cross and Crittenden Counties ... “14. (f) That any such taxes collected or to be collected by the Defendant Districts, or either of them, are expendable only for the improvement and maintenance of the drainage ditches in St. Francis County, and may not be lawfully diverted to the improvement or maintenance of the ditches of Tri-County Drainage District in Crittenden County or Cross County; and “(g) That under Act 371 of 1947, being Sections 21-577 to 21-582 inclusive ASA 1947, taxes collected upon levies made or to be made in the name of Tri-County Drainage District are expendable only for providing an adequate outlet for the drainage system originally constructed by the said Tri-County Drainage District, and the outlet for the entire said drainage system has always been and is now in St. Francis County and in the .area now constituting the separate District of East St. Francis Drainage District No. One; ...” As I read the majority opinion, it holds that the foregoing allegations do not state that the moneys collected on the lands in St. Francis County were to be used in cleaning out the access ditches in Cross County and Crittenden County. So we all seem to agree that the Tri-County District cannot collect benefits on the lands in St. Francis County for use in cleaning out or maintaining the access ditches in Cross County or Crittenden County. The question is whether the allegations in the complaint stated a cause of action. I think they did when given a-broad and liberal interpretation; and, therefore, I dissent from the affirmance. This is an important case and the facts should have been developed once and for all to prevent a multiplicity of litigation.   thoroughly agree with the majority that the other point of the demurrer — pendency of another action — is without merit. In the case of Kastor v. Elliott, 77 Ark. 148, 91 S. W. 8, we held that it is only when the complaint shows on its face the fact of another pending action, that the matter may be raised by demurrer. The complaint in this case does not show such fact on its face and, if the appellees wanted to make a defense that there was another pending case, they would have had to introduce proof and that would have precluded the demurrer.    For other cases to the same effect see Story v. Cheatham, 217 Ark. 193, 229 S. W. 2d 121; Ferrell v. Elkins, 159 Ark. 31, 251 S. W. 380; Cox v. Smith, 93 Ark. 371, 125 S. W. 437; and Cazort v. Dunbar, 91 Ark. 400, 121 S. W. 270.