Arnold v. Board of Sup'rs of Kossuth County
| Decision Date | 10 April 1911 |
| Citation | 130 N.W. 816,151 Iowa 155 |
| Parties | SARAH E. ARNOLD v. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF KOSSUTH COUNTY, Appellants |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Kossuth District Court.--HON. D. F. COYLE, Judge.
PLAINTIFF appealed to the district court from the action of the board of supervisors in assessing her land for the benefits resulting thereto from the making of a drainage improvement. There was a motion to dismiss such appeal on the ground that plaintiff had failed to file a petition as required by section 13, chapter 118, of the Laws of the 33d General Assembly. This motion was overruled, and the plaintiff was ordered to file such petition by a subsequent date on penalty of the dismissal of her action. From this ruling the defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
Harrington & Dickinson, for appellant.
W. B Quarton and Archie Hutchinson, for appellee.
Chapter 118 of the Laws of the 33d General Assembly is amendatory to various sections of the Code Supplement relating to drainage districts, and in section 13 of that act is found the following provision: "When an appeal authorized by this chapter is taken the county auditor shall forthwith make a transcript of the notice of appeal and appeal bond and transmit the same to the clerk of the district court, and the clerk shall docket the same upon payment by the appellant, of the docket fee; and on or before the first day of the next succeeding term of the district court, the appellant shall file a petition setting forth the order or decision of the board appealed from and his claims and objections relating thereto; a failure to comply with these requirements shall be deemed a waiver of the appeal and in such case the court shall dismiss the same." In April, 1909 plaintiff filed in the district court and caused to be properly served a notice of appeal from the action of the board of supervisors in making assessments against her land for a drainage improvement, which notice specified that the appeal would come on for a hearing and determination at the September term of the court. On the same day plaintiff filed the requisite appeal bond. These were the only steps necessary to be taken in instituting an appeal under the statutes as they existed and were in force prior to the enactment of the act of the Thirty-Third General Assembly above referred to. That act was by the usual publication clause "to take effect and be in full force from and after its publication in" two named newspapers, and the Secretary of State certified that it was published in such papers on April 19, 1909, the same day as that on which the notice of appeal and bond were filed in the district court. Appellant contends, first, that in contemplation of law the act had gone into effect when plaintiff's appeal was taken and its provisions were therefore applicable to such appeal; and, second, that, even though it had not taken effect on the day...
To continue reading
Request your trial