# Capps v. Judsonia & Steprock Road Improvement District

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · June 5, 1922 · 154 Ark. 46

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7811627

## Case

- **Full name:** Capps v. Judsonia & Steprock Road Improvement District
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** June 5, 1922
- **Citations:** 154 Ark. 46; 242 S.W. 72; 1922 Ark. LEXIS 441
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by McCulloch
- **Judges:** McCulloch, Wood
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7811627

## Opinion text

McCulloch, C. J., (dissenting). I do not think that the requirement of the statute that the completed assessment list should be filed with the county clerk before the publication of notice is jurisdictional, and avoids the assessment if not complied with. The purpose of the requirement is to give the owners of property an opportunity to be heard as to the correctness of the assessments— to provide a time and place for such hearing and notice thereof in advance. The specification 'of time of two weeks is not for the purpose of giving that much' time to prepare for a contest, but it is to insure publicity, so that every interested owner can be advised of the hearing. The failure to file the completed list was a mere irregularity, and should be disregarded unless prejudice actually resulted. In this instance the list was incomplete when filed on the day the notice was given, but it was completed before the day set for the hearing, and every landowner had an opportunity on that day to contest the correctness of the assessment. In fact, the landowners who are parties to this suit appeared, and their complaints against the assessment were heard, therefore the failure to complete the list of assessments before it was filed had no prejudicial effect whatever.
Of course, if the owners of property had been deprived of the opportunity to be heard on account of the failure to complete the assessment list before the day of hearing — in other words, if they were deprived of the fullest opportunity to be heard in complaint against the assessments — then a court of equity should grant relief, even treating the failure to file the list in time as a mere irregularity; but where no harm resulted, the assessments should not be avoided on account of the irregularity.
The commissioners do not sit as a court, though, in passing on complaints against assessments, they act in a quasi-judicial capacity; and strict compliance with the requirements of the statute should not be exacted as to matters affecting the jurisdiction of the board. Substantial compliance with the statute is all that should be required.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7811627. Public record. Not legal advice.