7 12 JACKSON V. FOSTER. [192 JACKSON V. FOSTER. 4-4328 Opinion delivered May 11, 1936. HIGHWAYS—STATE AID TO IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT S.—Since the State aid is to be paid to the district and not to any particular property owner, and since the act of 1931, p. 247, prescribes the method for determining the amount to be donated to a district, the sum paid is to the entire district and not to the property owners whose property fronts 'on the State highway; and the commissioners cannot, on receiving State aid, apply it to the reduction of the taxes against lands fronting on the State highway to the exclusion of lands that do not front on such highway. Appeal from Benton Chancery Court ; Lee Seamster, Chancellor ; affirmed.
ARK.] JACKSON . V. FOSTER. 713 Jeff R. Rice and J. T. McGill, for appellants. Bernal Seamster, for appellee. • MEHAFFY, J. This action was begun by appellees, who are residents and owners of real property in Paving District No. 1 in the city of Bentonville, Arkansas, against the appellants for a restraining order, restraining appellants from wrongfully using State Aid Funds, and from discriminating between real property-owners in said improvement district.. The appellees' property is not located on the State highway. The improvement district .owes approximately $54,000 bonded indebtedness. This indebtedness is alien on all the real property in the improvement district. The. State of Arkansas delivered to the commissioners of said district $30,385.33 State Aid Bonds to be used as provided by law. The commissioners have applied . $4,000 of said bonds to the reduction of the bonded indebtedness. On August 15, 1935, the commissioners of said district adopted the following resolution:. "Whereas, the • State of Arkansas has provided for ,the payment of .the cost of paving State highways, improved by improvement districts in the State of Ark-ansas; and, "Whereas, in Paving Improvement District Num, ber One of the city of Bentonville, Arkansas, all of Central Avenue lying in the limits of said Paling Improvement District No. One is a State highway, and by reason of the improvement of said State highway on said West Central • Avenue' and East Central Avenue, the State Refunding Board has issued and delivered to the commissioners of said paving improvement district the sum of $30,385.33, in State Aid Certificates; and, • "Whereas, the Board of Improvement of said Pawing ImproVement District No. One is of the opinioh that the said State Aid Bonds were intended to be used arid applied by the commissioners of said .district for the' purpose of relieving the property-owners in said district fronting upon State Highways Nos. 71 and 72, located in said paving district, and that the real property-owners located on said West Central . Avenue and East
714 JACKSON V. FOSTER. 1192 Central Avenue .and lyhig Within. `said PaVing Improvement District No. One, shouldbe • the-sbeneficiaries of.said payment in bonds by . the State of .Arkansas-.-rHs. •• therefore.; be it:resolved by the Board • sof Commissioners of -Paving • Improvement /District No: One 'of . the . city of Bentonville, Arkansas; . that said State CertificateS be . Used and exPended for' the , . piirpose of paying . off the assessment of benefits of the real property,: owners fronting upon said HighWay, 71, and •No: 72 and lying within the limits • of said improvement : district, and that sthe real propertY • loCated . in : said paving improv& ment district l Ana not ':located' on either of .; said •!State Highways 71 . and 72 are not !entitled • to . :Shhre • in the benefits derived or to sderived from said*State Bonds or State Certificates: i;edeiVed and 'held . by: 'the . cornmis-sioners . nf this 'district. • H• • ."Passed, approVed . and adopted,. this . 15th 'day of August, - 1935. • " Approved : • (Signed). 'Johns B. Applegate, "Chairthan Of Board . of ComthisSioners: •."Attest . :; (Signed) W. E. ' Jackson, Secretary." The appellants : filed 'answer, and' the . case s Ivas :tried on the following agreed statement of sfacts: • s '• • "It is agreed that plaintiffs are resident . property-owners and own , the' teal sproperty set forth ins the' 'petition: '' •That . same --is' within; the-confines- of ; Paving ; Imi provement • Di:Stria' No . : . 1; Mid : it: is furtlier agreed that no part of -said real . 'estate is . located-dn a State high: way or continuation thereof.. ! That 'assessment 'benefits against the real 'estate 'of plaintiffs 'have been made .and are now in force' by reason of the creatiori .sof 'said trict. Th a ' t W. E. JacksOn, JOhnTh'Applegate . and :W. Blocher are the conamisSioners ss Of said' diStrict; and . at the' 'present time: said sdiStrict• is - indebted ins . the sum of : $54,000 . for borroWed money,' and' that said . coninTisL sioners received the sum of $30,385.3.3 . par 'value s State aid bond's,: bearing three per cent. : interest froni ary 1, 1934,. and :which bonds were issued-in accordance withsthe 'statutes enacted by . the General: Assembly, Of the State of .Arkansas.proViding .for State aid .to,:mithicipal improvement districts ! iinproving State highways, -arid
ARK.] JACKSON. V.' FOSTER. 715 that the commissioners have sold and' applied $4,000 of said State aid bonds :toward : the 'reduction. of its indebtedness. ' "It iS agreed 'that the resolUtion set forth prior hereto was adopted , by the Board . Of dommiSsioners, 'and that the PrePerties of"the plaintiff§ ' are not located oil a Continuation of State highWaYS in Said district. "It is agreed that the commissioners are carrying out the purpose and intention of , said resolution to give the eilnitable benefitS receiVed froth State aid bonds to the real ProPerty located On the State 'highWayS, in_ said_ district, and Are thereby loWering annual collection hen6- fits levied against the Teal property located on said , State highWays in said di g trict, 'and that . said conithissioners. are net inalang any reduction of :the benefit asSessinents leVied again g ethe real prOpertY of PlaintiffS. That it is the intention of said commissioners to sell or exchange said State, aid bonds, as ProVicied by act No: 166 of the legislatiVe adt ' s *of the State' of ,ArkanSas, and , apply same to the reduetion 6±-th6"ibonded iridebtednesS of said district and are extending to the real property-owners frOnting upon the State highWays in said district the eqUitable benefits of sUCh , redUction to the exclusion of real . propertY not on . said State , highways and which latter PropertY iS ih . said d . ist , rict. "It is agreed that the total benefits assessed in said diStrict amount to $175,000; the . benefits asSessed against Central 'Avenue property, which is the property fronting .upon .said. State; highways, in said district, amounts to r $97,500; :that .the total : cost of the paving in the di g -trict wasi $72,696; 'that the 'total cost of the paving .of Central Avenue aforesaid, as determined by the State highway engineers; was . 39.84 per . cent.. of the total cost; or $29,966.08; that the total bond . 'issue of Said district was, $7,7,500; that :the Central Avenue real property fronting upon State highways. was obligated to pay ap-proxiniately 55 °per cent.. of the total cost of the 'bend issue ; the 'balance . of the diStrict not on State highways was .obligated to pay . approxiinately 45 per cent, of the bond issue. That there .waS: paid for improving said
716 JACKSON V. FOSTER. [192 Central Avenue 39:84 per- cent. of the total cost of the entire improvement in said district. "It is agreed by the parties hereto that no attack is made or can be made upon the original assessment of benefits on all of the property in said district. "It is agreed that the plat of the district showing the location of improvements upon the streets of said district and boundaries of the district is made a part of this agreed statement of facts." There is only one question for our consideration and that is whether the fund received , by the commissioners of the district from the State is for the benefit of thoSe property-ownerS whose property joins the State highway, or whOther • it is for the benefit of the property-owners of the entire district, whose property was assessed to pay for the ithprovements including the State highway. Our attention is called to the several acts of the Legislature beginning with the Harrelson act, which is act No. 5 of the Acts of Spec. ' Sess. of 1923. These acts of the Legislature haVe been reviewed by this court several times, and it would serVe no useful purpose to review them again. See Board of St. Imp. Dist. No. 315 v. Ark-ansaS Highway Comm., 190 Ark. 1045, 83 S. W. (2d) 81; Smith v. Refunding Board of Ark., 191 Ark. 1, 83 S. W. (2d) 76; Ledbetter v. Hall, 191 Ark. 791, 87 S. W. (2d) 996. .. Appellants' . contention is that the benefits arising, from the sale of State aid bonds should extend only to the owners of real property which is adjacent- to or, fronting upon the State highway. Appellants quote from act 85 of the Acts of 1931 to sustain their contention. That act provides, among other things, that -where a district has improved a thoroughfare that . is. a continuation .of -State highways- into or through some incorporated town or city, and has also ithproved another thoroughfare that was not a continuation -of 'a 'State highway into or through suCh town or city, then it 'shall be, the duty of the State Highway COmmission to have engineers of .the State Highway Department estimate-the per cent: of the value of the improvement made by the
ARK.] JACKSON V. FOSTER. 717 district on highways that are continuations of State highways, and the per cent. of the value of the improvements expended on thoroughfares that are , not continuations of State highways. The act provides that when the engineers'. have furnished the . information to . the highway commission,.it shall agree 'to pay a proportiOa7 ate part 'of the -maturing . bonds and interest of such hill:- provement district. • • That provision in the statute is manifestly for the purpose Only of determining the amount to be donated to the district ;' *but When fhat aniOnnt is deterniined in _the manner provided by law, the sum paid is to the' entire district and n rot to the property-owriefs whose property fronts upon the State , highway. In all the acts it is provided that the State aid shall' be paid to the district and not to any particular property-owners. The prop-erty-owners who haye property that is not adjacent to or near the State highway pay for the 'construction of the State highway the same as those property-owners pay whose property is 'adjacent to . or fronts upon the State highway. The agreed , statement of facts shOws that, the assessment benefits against, the real estate of the appellees, have been made and are , now in. force by reason of the creation of said district. Every property-owner :within the district is assessed 'according td the benefits 'to , his land, whether his land is on the State . highway . Or :not. In other .words, .all the property in the district is assessed to pay•for the , construction of the State, highway, and under the laW-mnst be •assessed according to the benefits:.accruing% to_theJand.The statute , its . elf not only provides that the money shall go to the district,,but it would be inequitable . and unjust to pay the owners of a portion of the land in the district, and not pay other persons whose property is assessed to- pay for the improvements. . . It was manifestly the intention of the 1Jegis1ature to protect and assist the property-owners of the,improveT ment district, and the intention that each property-owner should benefit, in proportion to. the assessinent„On his property.
718 [192 Theindebtednesk of the district is An obligatiOn and lion'agninst alP the' property iti the'district; . and* iiot.-im property aaJ acOnt 'to . th , e State highway: 'ply* 'against' , The chancery court , enjOined the dommiSsiOners fiom uSinw tlie'fnndS of the district ler 'tle benefit' Only' of property-owners of said chstrict owning proPeily .on• the ' Of State highWaYs, 'and restrained the com. continiiatidn missioners from lowering henept assessnientS on;.prop-eity: Owners loCated , on • State . high . WayS iri 'Sa , id , n ,. . . decree: a Ole chanCery . court fs .Correct,• and it is therefore attrmed. •
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.