Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Anderson

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Anderson

43 S.W.2d 356, 184 Ark. 763, 1931 Ark. LEXIS 263

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedNovember 23, 1931

StatusPublished

Cited by87 cases

This text of 43 S.W.2d 356 (Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Anderson, 43 S.W.2d 356, 184 Ark. 763, 1931 Ark. LEXIS 263 (Ark. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Humphreys, J.

Appellant brought suit in the chancery court of Lonoke County to enjoin appellee from constructing a filling station on the northwest corner of block 32 in the town of Cabot, which property is owned by appellee. It was alleged as a basis for the action that, in order to widen State Highway 67 passing over the street in front of said property, the town enacted ordinance No. 50, making it unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to place any building or obstruction within the extended boundaries of said highway, and imposing a daily fine of not less than $10 nor more than $50 upon any one violating said ordinance.

Appellee filed a demurrer to the complaint, alleging that it did not state a cause of action. The trial court sustained the demurrer, and dismissed the complaint, over appellant’s objection and exception, from which is this appeal.

This is an attempt on the part of appellant to widen its highway under the protection of an ordinance to prevent adjoining property owners within the extended boundaries of highway 67 from constructing buildings on their property adjoining the original street in front of same. In other words, it is an attempted indirect method of taking private property for public use without just ■compensation, which is. prohibited by article 2, § 22, of the Constitution of 1874, as follows:

“The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction, and private property shall not be taken, appropriated or damaged for public use without just compensation therefor.”

Zoning ordinances are allowable in towns and cities when authorized by valid statutory authority and when in harmony with the Constitution of the State, but are not allowable when unauthorized and contrary to the Constitution.

Towns and cities may legally widen streets and alleys under authority delegated by §§ 4006, 4009 and 4010 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest if the procedure provided therein is followed, but cannot do so by any other method.

The decree of the chancery court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Humphreys, J.

Appellant brought suit in the chancery court of Lonoke County to enjoin appellee from constructing a filling station on the northwest corner of block 32 in the town of Cabot, which property is owned by appellee. It was alleged as a basis for the action that, in order to widen State Highway 67 passing over the street in front of said property, the town enacted ordinance No. 50, making it unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to place any building or obstruction within the extended boundaries of said highway, and imposing a daily fine of not less than $10 nor more than $50 upon any one violating said ordinance.

Appellee filed a demurrer to the complaint, alleging that it did not state a cause of action. The trial court sustained the demurrer, and dismissed the complaint, over appellant’s objection and exception, from which is this appeal.

This is an attempt on the part of appellant to widen its highway under the protection of an ordinance to prevent adjoining property owners within the extended boundaries of highway 67 from constructing buildings on their property adjoining the original street in front of same. In other words, it is an attempted indirect method of taking private property for public use without just ■compensation, which is. prohibited by article 2, § 22, of the Constitution of 1874, as follows:

“The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction, and private property shall not be taken, appropriated or damaged for public use without just compensation therefor.”

Zoning ordinances are allowable in towns and cities when authorized by valid statutory authority and when in harmony with the Constitution of the State, but are not allowable when unauthorized and contrary to the Constitution.

Towns and cities may legally widen streets and alleys under authority delegated by §§ 4006, 4009 and 4010 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest if the procedure provided therein is followed, but cannot do so by any other method.

The decree of the chancery court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 S.W.2d 356, 184 Ark. 763, 1931 Ark. LEXIS 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arkansas-state-highway-commission-v-anderson-ark-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack