Badger v. Inlet Drainage Dist.

• Decision Date: 12 May 1892
• Citation: 31 N.E. 170,141 Ill. 540
• Parties: BADGER et al. v. INLET DRAINAGE DIST.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

141 Ill. 540

31 N.E. 170

BADGER et al.

v.INLET DRAINAGE DIST.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

May 12, 1892.

Appeal from appellate court, second district.

Assumpsit by Henry E. Badger and Warren H. Badger against the Inlet drainage district to recover the amount of 17 orders signed by the chairman and secretary of the district. Defendant obtained judgment, which was affirmed by the appellate court. Plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

J. E. Lewis and A. K. Trusdell, for appellants.

A. C. Bard well, for appellee.

SCHOLFIELD, J.

Inlet drainage district was organized pursuant to the provisions of ‘An act to provide for the construction, reparation, and protection of drains, ditches, and levees across the lands of others, for agricultural, sanitary, and mining purposes, and to provide for the organization of drainage districts.’ Approved and in force May 29, 1879. Laws 1879, p. 120. Assessments were made and confirmed in November, 1879, as provided by the act. Afterwards, on the 1st of June, 1882, the commissioners of the district made an agreement with Henry E. Badger and Warren H. Badger, doing business under the firm name of H. E. Badger & Son, whereby the latter agreed to remove their dam across Inlet creek, and also the mason work, stone abutment, and flume in connection with the dam, and in consideration thereof the commissioners agreed to pay them $1,700, and to levy an assessment upon the lands in the drainage district to make the payment; and the commissioners thereupon, because of such agreement, drew and delivered to H. E. Badger & Son 17 orders, of $100 each, on the treasurer of the district. H. E. Badger & Son removed the dam and other obstructions as the agreementrequire. In March, 1883, the commissioners made an assessment on the lands of the district for $1,700, to pay for removing the dam, etc., but the collection of this was enjoined at the instance of one of the landowners within the district, and no other money was ever levied upon the lands of the district for that purpose. The orders were presented to the treasurer of the district, and payment demanded, which was refused, because there was no money in his hands belonging to the district. The present suit was then brought upon the orders against the drainage district. By agreement of parties, the cause was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, and judgment was thereafter rendered by the court in favor of the defendant.

The question presented for our consideration arises on rulings of the circuit court in which that court refused to hold that the orders are valid charges upon the lands of the district. Although we have held that a drainage district is to be classed as a municipal corporation, (Commissioners v. Kelsey, 120 Ill. 482, 11 N. E. Rep. 256,) yet we have also held that such a district is organized merely for a special and limited purpose; that its powers are restricted to such as the legislature has deemed essential for the accomplishment of such purpose; and that it is only authorized to raise funds for the specific object for which it is formed; and that it can do that in no other mode than by special assessments upon the property benefited, which can, in no case, exceed the benefits to the lands assessed. Elmore v. Commissioners, 135 Ill. 277, 25 N. E. Rep. 1010. So, also, we have held, where the statute prescribes a mode and purpose of municipal taxation, it must be pursued; no other mode or purpose can be substituted by those who exercise the power. Webster v. People, 98 Ill. 343.

By section 9 of the act under which appellee is organized, the commissioners are required to determine, among other things, ‘the probable cost of the purposed work, including all incidental expenses, and the cost of the proceeding therefor.’ And it is provided by section 11 that if the commissioners shall find that the proposed work, or such portion of the same as will be satisfactory to the petitioners, can be done at a cost and expense not exceeding such benefits, they shal proceed to have the proper surveys, profiles, plans, and specifications thereof made, and shall report their conclusions, and a copy of such surveys, profiles, plans, and specifications, to the court which appointed them. ‘Section 13 requires notice to be given to those interested of the filing of the report, and, upon the day when application is made to confirm the report, they are authorized to ‘appear and contest the confirmation thereof, or show that the same ought to be modified in any particular, and may offer any competent evidence in support thereof.’ Under this, every property owner is entitled to be heard on every material question affecting the character of the improvement, and its cost. And it is further provided in section 18 that the jury, in assessing damages and benefits to result from the improvement, ‘shall award and assess the damages and benefits in favor of and against each tract separately, in the proportion in which such tract of land will be damaged or benefited; and in no case shall any tract of land be assessed for benefits in a greater amount than its proportionate share of the estimated cost of the work and expenses of the proceeding, nor in a greater amount than it will be benefited by the proposed work according to the best judgment of the jury.’ The action of the jury in this respect may be contested by the landowners affected, and an appeal is allowed therefrom. See sections 20, 21, 23.

It is manifest that it is indispensable to the determination of the questions of damages and benefits to different tracts of land, and proportioning them upon the different tracts...