Brill v. Board of Sup'rs of Sac County

• Decision Date: 06 February 1923
• Docket Number: 34674
• Citation: 191 N.W. 859,195 Iowa 132
• Parties: JOHN G. BRILL, Appellant, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SAC COUNTY et al., Appellees
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

191 N.W. 859

195 Iowa 132

JOHN G. BRILL, Appellant, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SAC COUNTY et al., Appellees

No. 34674

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

February 6, 1923

Appeal from Sac District Court.--E. G. ALBERT, Judge.

THE plaintiff appeals from an assessment made upon his lands for the cost of certain drainage improvements. The nature of the objections made to such assessments will be more particularly stated in the following opinion. Another appeal was taken by one J. Lowell Wilson on similar grounds, and by agreement of parties, both actions are submitted upon the same record. The trial court overruled the objections made, and confirmed both assessments, and plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

Malcolm & Currie and R. L. McCord, for appellants.

Elwood & Tourgee and Jacobs & McCaulley, for appellees.

WEAVER J. PRESTON, C. J., STEVENS and DE GRAFF, JJ., concur.

OPINION

WEAVER, J.

The case comes to us in a somewhat peculiar manner. The objection made to the assessments not only denies the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors to levy the same upon appellant's property, but also denies that the same was equitably apportioned. There appears, however, to have been a stipulation of the parties that the controversy should be submitted "on the legal questions involving jurisdiction and method of assessment, and if, in the opinion of the court, the case should be also submitted upon the amounts of such assessments, that question shall be submitted later, and both parties have the opportunity of introducing evidence." Such a method of trying a case in piecemeal is not to be approved. The appeal from the assessment levied by the board brings the case into court for an adjudication of all the issues joined therein, and it is not competent for the parties by stipulation or otherwise to split them up and try them seriatim, reserving the right to have two or more judgments and two or more separate rights of appeal. The court, especially where the cause is tried in equity, should insist that the parties submit their case as an entirety, and let the whole controversy be settled by a single decree. The scope of the inquiry for the consideration of this court, as restricted by the stipulation referred to, and as limited by the argument of counsel, leaves us nothing to pass upon except the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors to order the improvement and levy the assessment. The determination of this issue is made to depend on the further question whether this drainage improvement involved the establishment of a new and independent drainage district or was simply a reconstruction, repair, or improvement made upon an existing system of drainage.

It is conceded that, several years prior to the proceedings now in question, two drainage districts, No. 3 and No. 21, were legally and properly established, and that the lands owned by the appellants, Brill and Wilson, are included within the territory of said District No. 3. That the ditch provided for by said establishment was constructed, the cost thereof duly assessed upon all these lands, and the same duly paid, is also conceded. It is further agreed that, after said drain had been completed and had been in practical use for a period, one Carl Olson, owning certain lands in said District No. 3, presented a petition to the board of supervisors of Sac County, stating that the main drain in said district did not provide an adequate outlet for the drainage of his and other lands in said district, and asked that the board appoint a competent engineer to make an examination and report a plan for the repair or reconstruction of said drain, so that the lands within the district needing drainage might be provided with a more suitable outlet. Acting upon this petition, the board appointed one Holmes as engineer, to make the desired examination and report. The engineer's report was to the effect that the ditch and tile were not laid deep enough nor of sufficient capacity to effectively drain a considerable portion of the district. He also reported, in substance "that to reconstruct the entire line from the existing outlet up to the lands needing relief would be very expensive, and proposed a plan for an additional outlet, by beginning on the existing main and cutting through a ridge or elevation on the south side thereof to a point of discharge in that direction, thus saving distance and expense. This plan, he said, was considerably shorter than to follow down the old line, but deeper for a short distance only, and would drain the lands under consideration and relieve all lands below it to such an extent that no new line would be necessary to the present tile outlet." Going beyond the requirements of his appointment, the engineer added a recommendation that the lands included in District No. 3 and District No. 21, together with additional lands shown on certain maps, be included in one district. Notice of hearing before the board upon the Olson petition was duly published. The appellants herein, with others, appeared to these proceedings, and objected thereto. When the hearing was finally had, the engineer's report was approved, the objections thereto were overruled, and the proposed improvement was ordered made. From this order none of the objectors appealed. Claims for damages were settled, and after due advertisement, the contract for the work was...