{
  "id": 1606826,
  "name": "Jim Allen, et al v. The Tri-County Watershed Improvement District",
  "name_abbreviation": "Allen v. Tri-County Watershed Improvement District",
  "decision_date": "1967-01-27",
  "docket_number": "5-4731",
  "first_page": "1060",
  "last_page": "1064",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "245 Ark. 1060"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "435 S.W.2d 796"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 299,
    "char_count": 4760,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.432,
    "sha256": "3146cc02e082a87c8e3c3fd7bde7c6246a9acf2ceb7918124e7780248ceae5af",
    "simhash": "1:86e1522359f3debe",
    "word_count": 835
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:50.317094+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Holt, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Jim Allen, et al v. The Tri-County Watershed Improvement District"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Conley Byrd, Justice.\nAppellants on rehearing argue that it is error to accept the assessment records as evidence of the ownership by the landowners within the district.\nThe record, as abstracted, shows that evidence was taken for four days to determine the number of landowners within the district. The evidence on this issue was closed on August 31, 1967. The court determined the number of valid signatures and the total number of landowners on October 6, 1967. The only abstracted objection touching upon the use of the assessment records arose at the final hearing held on December 14, 1967 and is as follows:\nmr. cole:\nYour Honor, I understood that subsequent to the filing of the second petition (Tr. 95-103) we would be given time to present evidence as to the ownership of the lands involved. (Tr. 898).\nthe court:\nThat opportunity was given in those 4 days. mr. cole:\nI understood that possibly the Court would be willing to give us additional time.\nTHE COURT:\nNo, that was taken up pretty thoroughly.\nmr. cole;\nIt is my understanding that the Court has accepted a tabulation that was prepared setting out the names of the assessed owners. I think it has been referred to, and should be made a part of the record.\nI am raising this point as I feel that a wife is as much an owner of the lands as the husband in a conveyance to husband and wife. The testimony we have heard today makes it clear that in many such instances, the wife has not been included. The ownership has been taken from the assessment records which generally shows the husband\u2019s name\u2014 it is no evidence whatever of the ownership of the wife where it is owned by them as tenants by the entirety. I feel that in order for the Court to pass on whether there is a majority of ownership, we should be permitted to present that.\nthe court;\nThere was ample opportunity; the gate is closed. That is the ruling of the Court.\nmr. cole;\nSo then we are denied the right to bring in instances of where a husband and wife ...\nthe court;\nThat is right; proof has been taken on that score.\nmr. cole;\nI don\u2019t want to be in the position of arguing with the Court, but as I understand, the only proof which has been taken is protesting the formation of the district; not the question of ownership involved.\nthe court;\nAmple opportunity was had to bring that out; it will not be gone into from here on.\nmr. cole;\nPlease note our objections to the ruling of the Court on the question of bringing in the ownership of the wife in estates by entirety.\nIn their petition for rehearing, appellants refer to a motion that raised the issue of the probative value of the assessment records for purposes of determining ownership. The only abstracted motion that we find is as follows:\nRESPONSE AND MOTION\nThe opponents, appellants here, filed a Response and Motion, (Tr. 106-107), contending that the proponents had failed to make a prima facie showing that the petition had been signed by the majority in number of the landowners within the proposed district; that they had failed to obtain the valid signatures of a majority of the landowners, nor a majority of the lands involved.\nThat the petition contained names of persons who did not in fact own lands in the proposed district.\nThat the petition did not in fact contain the signatures of 243 persons owning lands in the affected area.\nThat there were duplications in some of the signatures and these were counted twice.\nThat the petition filed contained a large area of land which was not included in the area sought to be incorporated in the proposed district, nor were these excluded lands contained in the Notices published.\nThis petition then suggested the appointment of a Master in Chancery to make a detailed study of the matter, and to make a report of its findings to the Court.\nAs we read the abstracted record, the issue here argued with reference to the acceptance of assessment records as proof of ownership was never raised in the trial court. We consistently hold that we will not reach an issue raised for the first time on appeal. For this reason, the petition for rehearing is denied.\nWhile we must recognize from common experience that the ownership of lands shown by the assessment records is certainly not conclusive as to the persons who own the lands, yet we are not in a position to say that the assessments records are no evidence of ownership, especially when the proof with respect thereto is brought into the record without objection.\nPetition for rehearing denied.\nHolt, J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Conley Byrd, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles P. Cole and Fred Livingston for appellants.",
      "Ponder & Lingo for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Jim Allen, et al v. The Tri-County Watershed Improvement District\n5-4731\n435 S.W. 2d 796\nSupplemental Opinion on Rehearing Delivered January 27, 1967\nCharles P. Cole and Fred Livingston for appellants.\nPonder & Lingo for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1060-01",
  "first_page_order": 1084,
  "last_page_order": 1088
}