Deegan v. The State
| Decision Date | 04 November 1886 |
| Docket Number | 12,715 |
| Citation | 9 N.E. 148,108 Ind. 155 |
| Parties | Deegan et al. v. The State, for use of Stoddard, Drainage Commissioner |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Porter Circuit Court.
Judgment is affirmed, with costs.
J. M Howard and E. P. Hammond, for appellants.
E. D Crumpacker and P. Crumpacker, for appellee.
This was a suit by Stoddard, as drainage commissioner, against Margaret H. Deegan and her husband, to enforce the collection of an assessment for drainage purposes against the lands of Mrs. Deegan.
The assessment was made in pursuance of proceedings instituted and had under the circuit court act of 1881, as amended by the act of 1883.
The complaint avers that Paul Freed petitioned the Porter Circuit Court, setting forth the necessity for the drainage of certain lands, and that he gave due notice of the filing of such petition by posting up notices thereof in three public places in each township in which the lands described in such petition were situate.
The complaint avers that such further proceedings were had in that behalf, as that an assessment of benefits amounting to $ 70 was made and duly confirmed against the appellants' lands, and that the commissioner of drainage duly called for eighty per cent. thereof, which remains due and unpaid.
It is now said that because the complaint fails to aver that the appellants' lands were described in the petition, or that either of the appellants' names appeared in the petition or notice, it was fatally defective, and that error was committed by the court below in overruling the appellants' demurrer thereto.
Substantially the same objections were made to a complaint in the analogous case of Jackson v. State, etc., 104 Ind. 516, 3 N.E. 863, where it was held, that a complaint to enforce a drainage assessment, which shows that a petition had been filed and notice given, and that these were followed by such proceedings as resulted in a judgment establishing the drain, and confirming the assessments, is good as against a collateral attack.
Where it appears that there was a petition and notice, in a given case, thus invoking the jurisdiction of the court over a subject-matter, and over persons affected by a judgment finally given in such case, the presumption will be indulged, when the proceedings are drawn in question collaterally, that the petition and notice were in all respects sufficient to uphold the judgment, and such as the law required. Indianapolis, etc., G. R. Co. v. State, ex rel., 105 Ind. 37, 4 N.E. 316; Pickering v. State, etc., 106 Ind. 228, 6 N.E. 611, and cases cited; McMullen v. State, ex rel., 105 Ind. 334, 4 N.E. 903.
If assessments were made against lands not described in the petition, or against persons, without an attempt to give such notice as the law requires, these become matters of defence as against a complaint which alleges a petition and notice.
There was a special finding of facts by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial