ARK. ] BOYD V. OZARK TRAIL Bo. IMP. 1)IST. 255. BOYD V. OZARK TRAIL ROAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. Opinion. delivered March 23, 1925: HIGHWAYS—bHANGES IN ASSESSMENTS—RIGHT TO COMPLAJN.—Where' . a general assessment ,of benefits in a road improvement . 4istrict was made in 1921,. and a year later the board of commisioners made some changes lowering a few assessments to correbt •. obvious efrors, but no general reassessment Was made, taxpayers • '• who made no complaint -of the 1921 assessment within the: time. .allowed , are jn no position to complain of the 1922 changes, if the taxpayers whose assessments were lowered were not made parties. . . Appeal from Poinsett Chancery Court; J. III, Fut- ' rell, Chancellor; affirmed. Little, Buck & Lasley, for appellants.. J. G. Wakom, for appellees. • McCuLLocn, C. J . Appellants are the owners of ; real property within the boundaries of a road improver, 1.? ment district organized by special .act of the 'Oeneral - Assembly of 1919 (Road Acts . 1919, vol. 1, p. 1130); designated as the Ozark Trail Road Improvement Dis-. trict of Poinsett 'County, Arkansas,. the authority conferred by the statute being to . improve; by hard-surfacing, a public road running southeasterly from Marked Tree to the Crittenden County line, a distance of about nine miles. The statute is in the usual, form, providing •for the organization of the commissioners with authority to employ, necessary agents, to form plans, borrow money, issue bonds, levy taxes on assessed benefits, and .eon-. struct the improvement. There is a specific provision, as to the method of assessing 'benefits and giving notice: thereof, so that property owners could have an oppor— tunity to be heard. Authority to reassess benefits , was
256 BOYD.V. OZARK TRAIL Rn. IMP. DIST. [168 conferred in a.section of the statute which reads as fol7; lows: , • .• Section 7. The commissioners maY, not oftener .than once a year, reassess the benefits in said district; but, in the event the district shall .have . incurred an indebtedness or issued bonds, the total amount , of . assessed benefits shall never be diminished." Plans were formed and bonds were issued, and there was partial construction under this statute, but the General Assembly of . 1921 enacted another sPecial statute (Special Acts 1921, P. 1000) . consolidating this district' with another one designated as Road ImprOyement District No. 2, dr rather authorizing thiS* di gtriCt -t6 Construct the road formerly authorized to be constructed by the other district, and also authorizing this district to improve two laterals, one of which is known .as.lateral 2a. The laSt mentioned Statute contains the folleWing provision with reference to assessment of benefit's : ' "Section 4.' The conimissioners of 'the Ozark : Trail Road Improvement District are hereby 'authorized to, revise their plans, after determining what' roads ., they desire to construct and how such . roads shall beimProved, including the roads of 'Road District 'Number' TWo of Poinsett County; and to file said Plans . with their secretary at their office at Marked Tree; . that they then may.; make a reasSeskment 'Of all lands in the' diStrict so asqd set forth the benefits' and damages 'accrue te all lands in the district-by the carrying out of the own-pleted , and entire plans adopted . by the commissionerso and this re . assessment :shall be made and eqUalized in the manlier provided by § 6 of the act creating said Ozark. Trail Road Improvement District, arid the determinatiOn of the commissioners at the bearing provided herein shall be final, unless suit is brought in the chancery court with-' in 'thirty days thereafter te review it. The 'total ainatint of benefits, as finally equalized, shall never be less 'than the present combined assessment cif benefits of the Ozark Trail Read Improvement DiStrict and of 'Road, Improvement District Number' TwO of Poinsett County."
ARR.] BOYD V. OZARK TRAIL R. IMP. DIST. 257 3 In conformity with ;the provisions of. the , last-mentioned statute, the commissioners proceeded to reassess the anticipated benefits on all the lands -in 'the: original district, as well 'as the lands added thereto from Road Improvement District No. 2; and said assessment was completed and duly confirmed on November 28, 1921. No action was taken by appellants or any other taxpayers to set 'aside or que4tion the &srrectness of those assessments. However, the bOard of commissioners, in November, 1922, undertook to change the•assessment8 on tracts of land owned by certain persons other than the appellants, and, after> , making the corrections, gave notice thereof •in the manner provided by the original StatUte. No 'changes were' made in the assessments of. property of appellants as made by the conimissioners upon , the general reassessment in November,. 1921, but appellants contend that the assessments on their property are unjust and not in , conformity with.other assess-- ments in the diétrict, for the reason that their lands are not adjacent to the hard-surface road, butlie near lateral 2-A, which was improved.merely by grading .and drain-, ing, without putting a hard surface thereon, and appellants allege that they have to use this unsurfaced lateral in order to get out to the hard-surfaced main road. If is shown that the conimissioners issued additional bonds to a large amount and constructed the improtre-' ment by building a hard-surface , main road in accordance with the original statute, and by constructing the lateral as drained-and graded road, but not hard-surfaced. The contention Of appellants is that, by reason of the fact that the lateral is not hard-surfaced, their assessments are too high, and should be reduced, and they claim that the action of. the board in 1922 was a: general reassessment under' the statute, and that they have a right to attack its correctness and to have their assessments lowered. - This is an action commenced by appellants against the commissioners in the chancery court of" Poinsett County, and was commenced within thirty days after •
1 r 1, 258 BOYD V. OZARK TRAIL RD. IMP. DIST: [168 1 c i the • alleged. teassessitent . made •by!the .bbard.in•Novem-ber,.. 1922. • The commissioners . :answered, for. the district; denying . that. there :was any. teassessment• made in, 1922,. and, pleaded , that.; the cenfirmed ;assessment November, 1921, . • was concluSive •. of . -the .rights of appellants.. • . • • . .•,.. . , • ; • • ., • : • .pn a careful: review of the, record , in !the: case . Wei are of the opinion that the. contention 9f :appellee is .correct The ,chancellor :so held. ,..It cities . not...appear:from-the. record 'that the: cotnmissioners Undertaok. to , make . a.,gen.: eral reassessment . under the, statute:: „The .minutes. of the ? j board, as .we1l as. the 9ta1 testimony, i . n the, ease,. show that; I all the,cominissioners did:was, to • correct obviouSt errors; imthe • as ses sment• of :A very: limited:number of. tracts ':of. land..Sèction,4 Of the ad of 1921) • sOno-,1.dOes noton-, fer: continuing • power upon the boardr. Of,-.commissioners ta reassess : benefits.. . It , merely. authorized, •one..: teaSse.ss.r. ment after; the -passage of that • act ) : for the purpose. of. detertnining . the benefits. to ,arc,Crue frOM, the, whole of, ;the. improvement ,as l added to , by the last :statute...,,Authority, for ,. continuing ! p.o wet • to. reasse s knents i • mnst. rbe. found iii.§ ,7 .of the , original statute, .supta. ,; , -Tbat section,;. as .we have . already seenproides:for a re a g e ssment oftener than once...a. year, and :provides- thato afterthe trict shall have incurred , indebtednesst:orrissned: Winds, the total ainonnt. of :the , a g Sessedtbenefits never:he. diminished. •The • statuter conferted •no; I-authority , on, the connnissionersto, correct -•errots.i4d autharity is, to make :a • general , teassessMent not oftener T • than . once :a year, ..and, .before • stated, ! the testiniony shows that the..cbmthissioners did , not attempt , to do sO.• AppellantS therefore are bound by, the originat reassess, ment.made in November,' 1921, as they failed to, Complain. of it . The validity of the-eorrections made :by the !board of commissioners..on. tracts.of land . owned. by 9ther per,: sons is not involved in the present litigation,, :for those. owners; have : 11ot been tnade• parties:. -: • . • The chancery..court .was , correct .theref sate in 'dismisL: sing.,appellants! . coniplaintl f or want - . equity, and the. decree is affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.