Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

House v. Road Improvement Dist. No. 2 of Conway Cty.

House v. Rd. Improvement Dist. No. 2 of Conway Cty., 266 U.S. 175 (1924)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1924-11-17
Topic
general

Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Court. Both of these writs must be dismissed. No. 92. The only ground suggested to sustain the writ in this cause is that Act No. 245, Arkansas Legislature, 1919, which established Road District No. 2 of Conway County, was duly challenged as repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed House v. Road Improvement Dist. No. 2 of Conway Cty.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
6 opinions
HOUSEv. ROAD IMP. DIST.,266 U.S. 175(1924)
45 S.Ct. 60
HOUSEv. ROAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 2, OF CONWAY COUNTY, ARKANSAS, ET
AL.
HOUSEv. ROAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 5, OF CONWAY COUNTY, ARKANSAS, ET
AL.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.
Nos. 92 and 93.
Argued October 17, 20, 1924.
Decided November 17, 1924.
1. Where the decision of a State Supreme Court construed a road district statute as allowing twenty-eight days' notice by publication to land owners of proceedings to assess for benefits and adjudged that the notice published, read with the statute, sufficiently described the lands affected,held, that contentions that the statute did not provide due process of law were too insubstantial to support a writ of error. P. 176. 2. The objection that a statute assessing lands for a road improvement is arbitrary and void as to plaintiff because the improvement could not benefit his lands while other lands actually benefited were not included in the district assessed,heldclearly without merit. P. 177. Writs of error to review158 Ark. 330,357, dismissed.Page 176
THESE were two suits to enjoin collection of special road
taxes assessed on plaintiff's lands in Arkansas. Plaintiff
prosecutes error to the decrees of the Supreme Court of that
State affirming the decrees of the Chancery Court of Conway
County, which denied her the relief prayed.
Mr. Joseph M. Hill, with whomMr. Henry L. Fitzhughwas on the brief, for plaintiff in error.Mr. G.B. RoseandMr. Lasker Ehrman, with whomMr. Chas.T. Coleman, Mr. D.H. Cantrell, Mr. J.F. LoughboroughandMr.A.W. Dobynswere on the briefs, for defendants in error in No. 92.Mr. G.B. Rose, with whomMr. W.P. Strait, Mr. D.H.Cantrell, Mr. J.F. LoughboroughandMr. A.W. Dobynswere on the briefs, for defendants in error in No. 93.
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Both of these writs must be dismissed.No. 92.

The only ground suggested to sustain the writ in this cause is that Act No. 245, Arkansas Legislature, 1919, which established Road District No. 2 of Conway County, was duly challenged as repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment. Such a challenge must be distinct and substantial.

The act undertook to create the district with boundaries which include plaintiff's lands and specified the proceedings for assessing benefits to meet necessary costs. Her lands were assessed as provided. Some months thereafter, by a bill in equity, she claimed insufficient notice and asked relief from both assessment and consequentPage 177penalties; also that the commissioners' plans should be declared null and she be heard as to the merits of any assessment. She offered to pay any sum the court might find just and equitable.

The bill alleges that the statute authorized and the commissioners gave only seventeen days' notice of the assessment, by publication, that she had no actual notice, and that the publication failed sufficiently to describe her lands. For these reasons she maintained the act did not provide due process of law and violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court, having considered the objections, held that the statute allowed twenty-eight days after the first publication during which time petitioner might have objected to the assessment, and declared this was adequate; also that when read in connection with the statute the notice sufficiently described the lands. Plaintiff in error now insists that the act is null because it prescribes insufficient notice and description of the assessed lands.

Accepting the statute as construed by the state court, the suggested objections to its validity appear to us wholly wanting in merit.No. 93.

This cause grew out of the creation of District No. 5, Conway County, by Act No. 245, and assessment for benefits thereunder. With one exception the questions now raised are the same as those in cause No. 92. As an additional ground for challenging the statute plaintiff in error claims that it is arbitrary and beyond the power of the Legislature because the proposed improvement could not benefit plaintiff's lands, while other lands actually benefited were not included. The record does not show that this objection was placed upon any federal ground in the courts below; but, assuming that the point was properly made, we think it is clearly without merit.Page 178Houckv.Little River Drainage District,239 U.S. 254,265;Miller Luxv.Sacramento Drainage District,256 U.S. 129,130;Valley Farms Co. v.Westchester,261 U.S. 155,163,164.Writs of Error Dismissed.