8 HENDERSON V. RD. IMP. DIST. NO. 1 OF [171
HOT SPRING COUNTY. HENDERSON V. ROAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT N . 1 OF
'• HOT SPRING COUNTY. Opinion delivered May 19, 1926. 1. HIGHWAYS-IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT-COLLATERAL ArrACK.—There a road improvement district was created by a special statute, the validity of the district cannot be assailed except by showing that the statute is void on its face. HiGHWAYS-IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT-ATTACK ON ASSESSMENTS.- Where the correctness of an assessment is assailed on a collateral attack, in a suit brought after the expiration of the time allowed by . the .siatute, the presumption in - favor of the validitY and
ARK.] HENDERSON V. RD. IMP. DIST. NO..1 pF 9 HOT- SPRING COUNTY. correctness of the assessment is con , clu . siye, unless the assess- ment o is arbitrary on its face. . . PLEADING—STATEMENTS OF CONCLUSION.—Allegations by defend= ants, in a suit to enforce a tax lien for highway improvement, that • the • assessments were arbitrary and unreasonable were mere • statements of a conclusion and not of facts sufficient 'to ()Vet', turn the validity of the assessment. f • s ,Appeal from Hot Spring Chancery Court; Ja6e; M. Smith, Special Chancellor; affirmed. C. T. Cotham and Hotteton Emory, :for appellant. MCCULLOCH, C. J. Appellee . is a road improvement district created . by Special statute. Special Acts 1921, pp. 16, 228. The statute lays off certainToad districts Hot .Spring County by sections„and creates a . separate district or section for the completion of each One; of the specified roads, the boundaries of each district or section being described in the statute.. The road to be constructed under the section involved in this litigation is one.that runs in a general westerly directi6n,from a cer, tain street in Malvern,-designated as a,public road.. 'The statute names the commissioners and . authorizes the formation of plans for the improvement,. the, ,assessnient of .benefits, the issuance of bonds, and contracts for thq construction of the improvement. The statute proVides, in substance, that, after the benefits have been assessed, the . list shall be filed and notice published and an -oppor-funity 'given Tor : owners of property to, be heard, as to the correctness of the assessments. A -period, of twenty days is provided in the statute ,for suit: to contest, the validity of the assessments. • The assessment's were completed and.approved, and the road was constructed, and this suit was instituted by the commissioners of the district against appellants and other property owners who were delinquent- in the payment of their taxes, - to enforce, the tax lien. Appellants appeared and filed answers sand . cross-complaints, contesting the validity of the assessments on the ground:that their property would not be benefited. It was alleged by appellants, in general terms, that the assessments were
10 HENDERSON ' V. RD. IMP. DIST. No. 1 OF [171
HOT SPRING COUNTY. arbitrary and unreasonable, and there was a specific allegation in , the answer that the lands of appellants lie north of a certain mountain which constitutes an impassable barrier to the use of the yoad. The court sustained a demurrer to the answer, _ and rendered judgment in favor of the district for the enforcement of the tax lien. The district was, as before stated, created, directly by legislative enaCtment, and :the validity of the district cannot be assailed except by showing that the statute is ' void on its face. House y. Road Improvement District, 158 'Ark.. 357. , The defense offered by appellants to the enfOrceMent of the taxes &Institutes a collateral attack on the validity M the assessments made in accordance with the stab*. In the latest case on this subject, we said: "Where the "ôbrrectness of an assessment is assailed On Collateral attack in a suit brought after the expiration Of the time allowed by statute, the' presnmption in favor of the Validity and correctness of the : assessment is con-elusive, unless the assessment is arbitrary on its face." Fdre4 _Lake Levee Dist. v. Hudsoh, 170 Ark. 1106. There is 'nothing to show that the assessment of benefits in the present ed g e iS void on its face. The appraisal of henefitS was a Matter of judgment and opinion, and the appraisement made by the officers of the diStrict pur7 snant to- the • statute is conclusive on collateral attack. Appellants had the opportunity to challenge the correctness of the assessments when the list waS filed and notice thereOf pUblished in accordance with the statute, hence it is toO late tow to Challenge their correctness. The allega, tions of the complaint that the aSsessments were arbitrary and tnreasonable were mere StatementS of a conclusion and not a statement of facts sufficient to overturn the validi-67 of 'the assessments. Salmon v. Board of Direc-.tors, 100 Ark. 366. We are of the opinion that the chancellor was correct in sustaining the demurrer; and the decree is therefore affirraed.
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.