{
  "id": 1885470,
  "name": "Jim HOOD and George Batzos v. CENTRAL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 of the City of Pine Bluff",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hood v. Central Business Improvement District No. 1",
  "decision_date": "1989-12-18",
  "docket_number": "89-290",
  "first_page": "35",
  "last_page": "37",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "301 Ark. 35"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "781 S.W.2d 35"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "163 S.W. 1141",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1914,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 Ark. 314",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1540400
      ],
      "year": 1914,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/111/0314-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-184-108",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 S.W.2d 29",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1927,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 Ark. 375",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1403425
      ],
      "year": 1927,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/175/0375-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 S.W. 455",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1913,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 Ark. 141",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1342304
      ],
      "year": 1913,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/108/0141-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 Ark. 75",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1724107
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/241/0075-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 S.W. 575",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1901,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ark. 68",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8719712
      ],
      "year": 1901,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/69/0068-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 348,
    "char_count": 5126,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.916,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.0691262309115319
    },
    "sha256": "976a02e28e3e4b4a2f50145c57d4267ddfe3e8808a0670a193925d1fdaef2d09",
    "simhash": "1:715ceae6c14bf99a",
    "word_count": 893
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:23:07.951222+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Hickman, Purtle, and Newbern, JJ., concur.",
      "Hickman and Newbern, JJ., join."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Jim HOOD and George Batzos v. CENTRAL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 of the City of Pine Bluff"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice.\nThis is a taxpayers\u2019 suit to enjoin the appellee central improvement district from repairing and constructing sidewalks, the purpose for which it was formed. Appellants argue a number of defects in the organization of the district, but only one need be discussed.\nIn order to form a central business improvement district, the owners of two-thirds of the assessed value of real estate within the proposed district must petition the city council for the creation of the district. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-184-108 (1987). After that is done, and after public notice and hearing, the city council can pass an ordinance creating the district. The appellants argue that the district was not validly created because the petition to the city council did not contain the signatures of the owners of two-thirds of the assessed value of real estate within the district. The argument is meritorious.\nAt the time the ordinance was passed the total assessed value of real estate in the district was $3,279,080.00, and two-thirds of that total is $2,186,053.33. The petition contained signatures representing $2,321,940.00 in assessed value, or only $135,886.67 more than necessary. We discuss only one of the purported owner\u2019s signatures since it represents $191,645.00 in assessed value, or more than enough to invalidate the organization of the district.\nThe statute requires that the name of the owner be signed to the petition. The owner\u2019s name can be signed by an agent, but only when the agent signs as an agent and the name of the owner is disclosed. Colquitt v. Stevens, 111 Ark. 314, 163 S.W. 1141 (1914). In this case, a tract having a value of $191,645.00 was owned by the Arkansas Holding Company, but the name of that company does not appear on the petition. Instead, the name of \u201cFlake, John L. TR\u201d is printed as owner of the tract. To the right of the trustee\u2019s name is the signature of Charles R. Reed. Thus, the name of the owner, Arkansas Holding Company, was not signed to the petition in any manner, and the assessed value of the land owned by the Arkansas Holding Company cannot be counted as part of the petition. Consequently, the district was not validly formed.\nReversed and remanded for entry of decree consistent with this opinion.\nHickman, Purtle, and Newbern, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice."
      },
      {
        "text": "John I. Purtle, Justice,\nconcurring. I concur for the purpose of stating that, in my opinion, many of the signatures on the petition were improper and inadequate. I would hate to see the same mistake occur again and the case reversed when simple precautions can prevent such a waste of time.\nIn matters relating to the formation of improvement districts requiring the signature of the majority of the property owners, this court has spoken many times, with clarity, on the right of one person to sign for another or on behalf of a corporation. In Ahern v. Board of Improvement Dist.No. 3 of Texarkana, 69 Ark. 68, 61 S.W. 575 (1901), this court held that when property is held by husband and wife as tenants in common, both of them must sign to include all of the property in a district. If only one signs, only half of the value may be counted. This opinion has continued in force down through the years.\nIn Gardner v. Bullard, 241 Ark. 75, 406 S.W.2d 368 (1966), this court held that a spouse\u2019s signature on a petition was essential to her becoming a valid objector to a district where the property was held as an estate by the entirety. It could not be shown at trial that the wife had ratified the action of her husband in signing as her agent. The Gardner opinion flatly stated that it did not matter whether the interest of a wife was by the entirety or in common, or even whether she was a partner \u2014 the principle of requiring her signature remained the same. The Gardner opinion went on to point out that if a husband signed his wife\u2019s name to the petition, without her presence, she could have furnished proof at the hearing that she had ratified the signature or that it had been authorized. However, when he did not purport to sign her name, it could not be shown to have been ratified at a hearing on the contest of the formation of the district.\nA lessee cannot sign for the owner of the property in the absence of some showing of agency. Smith v. Improvement Dist. No. 14 of Texarkana, 108 Ark. 141, 156 S.W. 455 (1913). Since the lessee cannot sign for the owner of the property, and no person can sign another person\u2019s name or corporation\u2019s name without authority, it appears to me that the names of the Platwell Properties and the properties of the two banks are not properly signed in this case. It might also be noted that if a railroad right-of-way runs across property, it is a part of the real estate and subject to assessment. Fry v. Poe, 175 Ark. 375, 1 S.W.2d 29 (1927).\nHickman and Newbern, JJ., join.",
        "type": "concurrence",
        "author": "John I. Purtle, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Evans Benton, P.A., for appellant.",
      "Ramsay, Cox, Bridgforth, Gilbert, Harrelson & Starling, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Jim HOOD and George Batzos v. CENTRAL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 of the City of Pine Bluff\n89-290\n781 S.W.2d 35\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered December 18, 1989\nEvans Benton, P.A., for appellant.\nRamsay, Cox, Bridgforth, Gilbert, Harrelson & Starling, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0035-01",
  "first_page_order": 65,
  "last_page_order": 67
}