Briggs v. Union Drainage Dist.
| Decision Date | 18 January 1892 |
| Parties | BRIGGS et al. v. UNION DRAINAGE DIST. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Iroquois county court; MOSES H. Evans, Judge.
Assessment proceedings by the drainage commissioners of Union Drainage District No. 1, Martinton and Iroquois townships. To a judgment confirming the assessment Briggs & Fritts bring error. Affirmed.
S. R. Moore, for plaintiffs in error.
R. W. Hilscher, for defendants in error.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the count court of Iroquois county, confirming an assessment of the drainage commissioners of Union Drainage District No. 1 of Martinton and Iroquois townships in Iroquois county. The district was organized under the act of May 29, 1879, and the lands in the district had been assessed, and $4,193,50 collected and expended on the improvement, except the sum of $150. The petition in this case was filed in the county court by the commissioners for the purpose of raising an additional sum of $1,500 for ‘extending, continuing, deepening, straightening, and widening ditches, and for additional work,’ and for an ‘annual assessment of $150 to keep the ditch in repair.’ The petition was brought under the provisions of section 63 of the act of June 30, 1885, (3 Starr & C. p. 193,) and it seems to conform to the requirements of that section of the statute. It showed the amount of money that had been collected and expended, and the balance remaining in hand, and the petitioner attached to the petition profiles, plats, and estimates of the additional work found necessary in order to afford proper drainage for the lands of the district. Upon the hearing of the petition the court granted the prayer thereof, and the assessment to raise the amount required was made by the commissioners as required by the statute. The appellants filed objections before the commissioners, which were overruled, and they appealed to the county court, where a trial was had before the court without a jury, resulting in a confirmation of the assessment except as to one tract of land outside of this district, where the assessment was set aside.
In the argument of counsel for appellants it is contended that there was no evidence introduced on the trial before the county court to sustain the assessment. The commissioners, to sustain the issue presented for determination by the appeal of appellants, put in evidence the assessment roll and rested; and the question presented is whether the evidence introduced was sufficient to make out a prima facie case, or did the statute require them to introduce further evidence. Paragraph 50 of the act under which the trial was had (3 Starr & C. p. 188) provides that ‘the trial shall be conducted as in other cases of appeals from justices of the peace, * * * and, in case the assessment of damages or benefits shall be changed from that made by the jury or commissioners, the court shall cause the assessment roll to be amended to conform thereto.’ Rev. St. 1891, c. 42, § 24. Under this section it is apparent that on an appeal of this character a trial denovo was intended. It will therefore be necessary to go back and see what the trial was before the commissioners from which the appeal was taken. Paragraph 42 provides for the assessments of benefits or damages, as the case may be, and the making of an assessment roll. Paragraph 45 provides that when the assessment shall be completed a time and place shall be fixed for a hearing. Paragraph 46 provides as follows: ‘The jury shall appear at the time and place appointed, and hear all objections that may be made by the owners of lands which may be allowed damages or assessed for benefits, or by the commissioners to the allowance of damages to or assessments of benefits against any tract of land, and shall make such corrections as shall seem to them just, and shall adjust such assessment so as to make the same just and equitable.’ Id., c. 42, § 20. From this section it seems that the jury or the commissioners, who have the assessment roll before them, start out on the hypothesis and with the presumption that the assessment roll before them is correct, and, unless testimony is introduced by those objecting, tending to prove that it is unjust or inequitable, it will be confirmed without any proof being introduced to sustain it. If we are correct in this, it seems plain that on the trial, where an appeal has been taken, the assessment roll makes out a prima facie case, and the commissioners are not required to resort to other evidence except such as may be required to meet the evidence introduced by the objectors to impeach the assessment.
It is next...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McMurry v. Kansas City and Thomas Kelley & Son
...v. Smothers, 103 Ark. 269; City of Coldwater v. Tucker, 36 Mich. 476; Maywood Co. v. Village of Maywood, 140 Ill. 216; Briggs v. Union Drainage Dist., 140 Ill. 53; Albertson v. Town of Chicago, 120 Ill. 226; v. Chicago, 191 Ill. 210; Church v. People ex rel., 179 Ill. 205; Johnson v. Duer, ......
-
Hoehamer v. Village of Elmwood Park
...194 Ill. 310, 62 N. E. 679. A question of benefits under a special assessment is not included in the right. Briggs & Frith v. Union Drainage District, 140 Ill. 53, 29 N. E. 721. Under section 66 of the Local Improvement Act (Smith-Hurd Ann. St. c. 24, § 770), interest shall be included in t......
-
Hunt Drainage Dist. v. Harness
...on work outside the district, under the order and direction of the court. The same question was considered in Briggs & Frith v. Union Drainage District, 140 Ill. 53, 29 N. E. 721, and the court held the drainage commissioners had the power to use money raised by assessment against the lands......
-
Carder v. Fabius River Drainage District No. 3
...170 Ill. 37; Brush v. Carbondale, 78 Ill. 74; Mt. Carmel v. Shaw, 155 Ill. 37; Railroad v. Drainage Dist., 129 Ill. 417; Bridge v. Drainage Dist., 140 Ill. 53; People rel. v. Myers, 124 Ill. 95; Hosmer v. Drainage Dist., 135 Ill. 51; School Dist. v. Young, 152 Mo.App. 304. If the allegation......