848 ELROD v. BD. OF IMP. OF PAVING DIST. No. 45. [171 • ELROD V. BOARD OF IMPROVEMENT OF 'PAVING • DISTRICT No. 45. . Opi . nion delivered October 4, 1926. 1. .STA TUTES—RETAOACTIVA O PERA TIONPRESUMPTION.—StatUtes are to be construed as having , only a prospective operation, unless •the • purpose' and intention 'of the Legislature to ' give them a retrospective • operation is expressly' declaied or'Is necessarilY, • implied from the language used.' 2. 'MUNICIPAL C ORP ORATIONS— IMPROVEMENT . DISTRICT LIMIT OF COST. —Acts 1.925,!p. 548, limiting the cost'of ,an improvement to 50 - per cent. of . the assessed valuation, did not apply where„a peti7 tion for an improvement 'district, signed by , a majority in value , 'of the property . owners, was filed before the act becanie effective, thongh the' petition wars not acted upon by the' citY 'coUneil initil' after the act went into effect. . • • Appeal from Miller. Chancerf Court ; C. E. ,Johnson, Chancellor ; affirthed. B. B. Carter, for appellant. G. G. POpe, for appellee. HUMPHREYS,, j . Pursuant, tO a . petition filed with -Ow city council of !Texarkana, Arkansas, l on the•lOth day:of . February, 1925; cónforniing io, the general laws of, the
ARK.] ELROD v. BD. OF IMP. OF PAVING DIST. No. 45. 849 State of Arliansas, relating to improVement districts in • -cities and- towns, said council passed an ordinance on March 10, 1925, laying off and creating Improvement District No. 45 in said citY. After the passage of said ordinance, in accordance with the law, a petition signed by a majority in value of the owners of real property in said: district was filed and duly presented to the city council, on May 26,1925, in which it was specified that the -cost of the:improvement should not exceed 195 per centum.of the assessed value of the district, in conformity to act 395 of the acts o , f the Legislature of 194 which Provided that any improvement might be undertaken which should not exceed in cost the percentage specified in said petition of the value of the real property in the district as shown by the last county assessment. - The council set the petition down for hearing on the. 23d day of June, 1925, notice was given in accordance with law, and, , on the day set, the council heard the petit tion and found that the majority in value of the property - owners in the . , district had signed it, whereupon said; council elected Bernard Finley, E. C. Black and Milton . Oats as members of the board of improvement, who qualified hy taking the oath as prescribed by law. Plans were then made for fhe improvement, which were approved by the council. The city council then elected three resi-, dent electors of the district to assess the benefits to. be received on.accouni of the improvement of each lot, block or parcel of real property in the district, who certified and made an assessment of benefits based upon the majority petition in value, in which it was specified that, the cost of the improvement should not exceed 195 per centum of the assessed value of the property in the district as shown by the last county assessment. , On February 23, 1926, the city council passed an ordinance levying and assessing the benefits against each piece of real property in the district in accordance with the report of the assessors. .At this juncture in ;the proceedings this suit was instituted by the appellant, a real estate owner in the
850 ELROD v. BD. OF IMP. OF PAVING DIST. No. 45. [171 district; to prevent apPellee from enforbing the assessment against the property in the . district; upon the alleged ground that, *under • he law,- the cost of the improvements could not exceed the sum of 50 per centum of the assessed" valuation of the property in the district aecording to the last county assessment, whereaS theesti-mated cost of *the improvement is more than 100 per centuM of said assessed valuation. The facts set out above constituted the gist Of the bill filed by appellant. • The appellee filed' a demurrer to the bill, which *as sustained by the cOurt, and, upon his failure and refusal to plead further, his bill Was disthissed for.the want of equity, from which is this appeal. Appellant's sole contention for a reversal of the decree is that, after the majority petition ! in value of the property owners in the district had been set down for hearing by the' city council, and after notice Of the hearing had been given, but b'efore it Was finally heard on Jnife . 23, 1925; act 184- of the -Act§ : of the 'General Assenibly' of' 1925, amending act No. 395 of the Acts ,of the General Assembly of 1921, had become effective and *a's-applicable to the district: Act 395 Of the' Acts of 1921 *provided that any inaprovement 31:Light be undertaken 'which did not exceed in cost the percentage of the value of the real property in the district specified in-the petition,' and 'the petition specified that the cost . of the imprOverrient Should nOt exceed' 195 per centum of the asseised value of the property in the district. Act 184 Of the Acts of 1925 liniited the cost of the, improvement to 50 per cent. of the assessed valuation, except in cases *where 75 per cent. in value 'signed the petition, in which case the- cost was liinited to -100 per cent.-I The'soundness of appellant's contention must depend upon whether said act of 1925 was retroaetive'in 'effect. It made a substantive change in the law, and was not entirely-remedial in its nature. "The pre8umption is that all legislation is intended to act prospectively, and not retrospectively." Black v. Special School Dist. No. 2,116 Ark. 472, 173 S. W. 846, 1104. There is no deelara-
ARK.] ELROD V. BD. OF IMP. OF PAVING DIST. No. 45. 851 tion in the act that it should have a retroactive effect, and no language is used therein from which such effect is necessarily implied. The following rule has been recently announced by this court:- "It is presumed that all legislation is • intended to act only prospectively, and all statutes are to be Construed as having only- a prospective operation unless the purpose ankintention of the Legislature to give them a retroactive effect is expressly declared or necessarily implied from. the language used." State V. K. C: & Memphis Ry. & Bridge Co., 117 Ark. 606, 174 S. W. 248; Special School District of Texarkana v. Board of ,Improvement of Paving District No.13 of Texarkana, 127 Ark. 341,181 S. W. 918. The court is also committed, to the following rule : "No statute will be given retroactive effect if it is susceptible of any other construction." Rhodes v. Cannon, 112 Ark.-6, 164 S. W. 752. The basis for the formation, of local improvement • diStricts in cities and towns is the consent of the majority in value of the owners therein, so the petition is the foundation for the improvement. When the petition is signed by the majority in value of the property owners and filed with the city council, that body must consider if with reference to the statutes then existing in order tO carry- out the . intention of the Constitution. Sembler v. Water & Light Imp. Dist., 109 Ark. 90, 158 S. W. 972; Bell v. Phillips, 116 Ark. 167, 173 S. W. 864; Skipper v. Street Imp. Dist. No. 1, 144 Ark. 41, 221 S. W. 866. Certainly the purpose of act 184, Acts 1925, could not have been to destroy the foundation or basis of districts in the process of formation in the State. It was clearly passed to govern districts which should be organized after it became effective. No error appearing, 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.