Cole v. Norborne Land Drainage Dist of Carroll County, Mo

• Decision Date: 01 February 1926
• Docket Number: No. 152,152
• Citation: 270 U.S. 45,70 L.Ed. 463,46 S.Ct. 196
• Parties: COLE et al. v. NORBORNE LAND DRAINAGE DIST. OF CARROLL COUNTY, MO., et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

270 U.S. 45

46 S.Ct. 196

70 L.Ed. 463

COLE et al.

v NORBORNE LAND DRAINAGE DIST. OF CARROLL COUNTY, MO., et al.

No. 152.

Argued Jan. 20, 1926.

Decided Feb. 1, 1926.

Messrs. M. J. Henderson and Cyrus Crane, both of Kansas City, Mo., for appellants.

Messrs. William A. Franken and S. J. Jones, both of Carrollton, Mo., for appellees.

Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a bill to restrain the collection of a tax and entry upon the plaintiffs' lands in pursuance of a plan of drainage established in the mode provided by the laws of Missouri. The grounds on which relief is sought are that section 40 of the Drainage Laws of 1913 (Laws 1913, p. 254), under which the plaintiffs' lands were brought into the drainage district, is contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the inclusion of their lands was an arbitrary exercise of power for the purpose of making the plaintiffs pay for benefits that they did not share. The District Court found that there was no arbitrary exercise of power, but only a decision upon disputable questions of benefit with regard to land all of which was Missouri bottom land, similar in condition in everything but degree. It upheld the inclusion of the plaintiffs' land. In view of the constitutional question raised the plaintiffs appealed directly to this Court.

Under the laws of the State a drainage district was incorporated which originally contained, it is said, 14,400 acres. In a later year, upon petition of the supervisors of the district, the boundaries were enlarged in due statutory form so as to take in nearly 24,000 acres more of adjoining land, including that now concerned. It is not disputed that the original district was lawful in all respects. In general there can be no doubt that a State has power to add more land that shares the benefit of a scheme, to the lawfully constituted district that has to pay for it, and to do so against the will of the owner. Houck v. Little River Drainage District, 239 U. S. 254, 262, 36 S. Ct. 58, 60 L. Ed. 266; Squaw Creek Drainage District v. Turney, 235 Mo. 80, 138 S. W. 12; Mudd v. St. Francis Drainage District, 117 Ark. 30, 173 S. W. 825; Faithorn v. Thompson, 242 Ill. 508, 90 N. E. 303.

But it is objected that as in this case the original district was formed on the petition of the 'owners of a majority of the acreage' in contiguous lands, and as, under the statute, the concurrence of the owners of a majority of the acreage was necessary, there is an unconstitutional discrimination in not leaving it to a similar majority to determine whether the new land shall come in. It seems strange if the power of the Legislature to add to a lawfully existing district depends on how that district was formed many years before. But it is enough to repeat the answer of the appellees. The original...