Camden Special Road Dist. v. Willow Drainage Dist.

• Citation: 199 S.W. 716
• Decision Date: 31 December 1917
• Docket Number: No. 12605.,12605.
• Parties: CAMDEN SPECIAL ROAD DIST. et al. v. WILLOW DRAINAGE DIST. et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

199 S.W. 716

CAMDEN SPECIAL ROAD DIST. et al. v. WILLOW DRAINAGE DIST. et al.

No. 12605.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 31, 1917.

Error to Circuit Court, Ray County; Frank P. Divelbiss, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Petition by the Camden Special Road District and others against the Willow Drainage District and others. Decree for petitioners, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

Garner, Clark & Garner and Lavelock & Kirkpatrick, all of Richmond, for plaintiffs in error. J. L. Farris & Sons, of Richmond, for defendants in error.

ELLISON, P. J.

The defendant Willow Drainage District was organized and incorporated as a drainage district in the county court of Ray county, Mo., in 1909, under article 5 of chapter 122 of the R. S. of Missouri for the year 1899; after its organization defendant constructed a ditch for drainage purposes along the route set out in the plan of organization theretofore approved by the county court, which ditch was constructed across a certain public road. Defendant constructed a bridge across its ditch where it crossed the public road; afterwards the water coming down the ditch washed out the approaches to this bridge and to some extent undermined the piers upon which the bridge rested.

Plaintiff the Camden special road district was organized from territory including the site of the public road and bridge, after the construction of the bridge. In February, 1916, plaintiff road district filed its petition for injunction against defendant drainage district, alleging, in substance, that defendant has failed to construct a "proper and convenient" bridge across its ditch, and that it constitutes an obstruction of the road, and asking that defendant be enjoined and restrained from obstructing the road, and, further, that it be required to provide a convenient and necessary passageway and bridge.

The answer of defendant district, after admitting the incorporation of the road district and of the drainage district and denying all other allegations, sets up that the drainage ditch was constructed according to law by permission of the county court before the organization of the road district.

Upon a trial, the circuit court held that it was the duty of the defendant drainage district to build and maintain a suitable bridge across said drainage ditch, and rendered a decree requiring the drainage district to remove and abate said obstruction— "or to construct, repair, and otherwise fix, and when fixed to maintain a suitable and safe crossing, bridge, approaches, and fill over and across its artificial ditch."

There are two drainage schemes provided for in our statute. One is known as "Drains and Levees—Drainage Districts by Circuit Courts" (sections 5496-5541, R. S. 1909), and the other as "Drains and Levees, by County Court," etc. (sections 5547-5577, R. S. 1909). The districts here involved belong to the county court class. Under the circuit court class there is no statutory authority for the drainage...