#### McCoy v. Holman.

Opinion delivered April 11, 1927.

*594 S. L. White, for appellant.

L. P. Biggs, for appellee.

*595Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). Appellant contends that a local improvement must consist of a single unit and that the county court was without power to organize a district" for the construction of three separate and distinct improvements. The statute under which the district was organized provides: “Upon the petition of a majority in value of the owners of real property in any territory adjacent to a city having a population of more than ten thousand inhabitants, as shown by the last Federal census, it shall be the duty of the county court to lay off into an improvement district the territory described in the petition, for the purpose of building street-car lines, waterworks or water pipes, systems of gas-pipe lines, electric lines for light and' power, or sewers, * * * or for more than one of said purposes,” etc. Section 1, act 645, Acts of 1923.

The court’s order establishing the district reads:

“Laying a complete system of main and lateral water-pipes connecting with the Avaterworks system serving the city of Little Rock; and for the purpose of laying a complete system of gas-pipes connecting Avith the gas system of the city of Little Rock; and for the purpose of building a system of electric lines for light and poAver connecting Avith the lines or systems serving the city of Little Rock. Said Avater, gas, electric light and poAver systems to be so located in said district,” etc.

It Avas the evident purpose, as plainly expressed in the statute, to empower the county court to lay off and organize such improvement districts for the purpose of constructing any one or more of the improvements designated. This might include the construction of seA^eral of said improvements, any three or more of them, and Avith-out regard to the connection or relation of either improvement to the other, so far as the poAver of the county court to establish the district is concerned.

In Wilson v. Blanks, 95 Ark. 496, 130 S. W. 517, the court held, under statutes authorizing the creation of districts for construction of improvements in cities and toAvns, that one district could be created for the purpose *596of making two local improvements, waterworks and electric light-systems. Answering the question, Can one dis-. trict he created for both purposes? the court said: “The statutes do not expressly prohibit the creation of one district for the purpose of making two local improvements. Their object is to secure the improvements upon the terms 'and conditions proscribed by the statutes. If the two improvements cover the sanie territory, and can be made as fully and effectually and in the same manner, and without prejudice to the rights of any ef the property OAvners under the statutes by one as they can be by two districts, we see.no valid reason why they should not be combined and made in such manner.”

The tw'o improvements must be treated as one, of course, for the purpose of including them in one district, a single improvement or construction,-and made in the manner indicated and under the requirements of the statute as to the limiting of cost. Bateman v. Bd. of Commissioner, 102 Ark. 307, 143 S. W. 1062.

In Bank of Commerce v. Huddleston, 172 Ark. 999, 291 S. W. 422, the court held that improvement districts embracing the entire area of the city or town may be created for the purpose of constructing waterworks and electric lights, and could accept contributions from the city in order to enable it to construct the improvements within the limit of cost provided for by statute.

In the instant case each of these separate improvements are but a combination and parts of an entire improvement which can be provided in the organization of one district and without necessity for or regard to a separate assessment of benefits for eac-h one of the parts of said improvements, even though the distinct parts of the .improvement confer benefits of different kinds upon the property of the district. They each alike confer similar and identical benefits on the property in the district, and there is no good reason why they might not be constructed more economically and to the advantage of the property owners of the district by one board as a combined and single improvement, than by three boards of *597commissioners constructing .one sucli improvement for the same territory under three separate improvement districts.

There are no other contentions made as to the invalidity of the district, which is presumed to be lawfully created. No error'was committed by the chancery court, and its decree is affirmed.