Comm'rs of Savanna & York Drainage Dist. v. Vergne

• Decision Date: 22 June 1921
• Docket Number: No. 13396.,13396.
• Citation: 131 N.E. 581,298 Ill. 480
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: COMMISSIONERS OF SAVANNA & YORK DRAINAGE DIST. v. DE LA VERGNE et al.

298 Ill. 480

131 N.E. 581

COMMISSIONERS OF SAVANNA & YORK DRAINAGE DIST.

v.DE LA VERGNE et al.

No. 13396.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 22, 1921.

Error to Carroll County Court; Arthur J. Gray, Judge.

Petition for improvement of drainage district by the Commissioners of Savanna & York Drainage District, opposed by Benjamin De La Vergne and others. Objections to the petition were overruled, and the Commissioners filed roll of assessments of benefits and damages. Objections to commissioners' roll were overruled, motions to strike the roll from the files and for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were denied, and objectors bring error.

Affirmed.

O. M. Grove, of Mt. Carroll, for plaintiffs in error.

Stransky & Couchman, of Savannah, for defendants in error.

DUNCAN, J.

The facts stated or admitted by plaintiffs in error in this case are the following: The Savanna & York Drainage District, located in Carroll county, Ill., was organized in 1906, and has been in operation since that time. Originally the project consisted of levees and ditches. In 1911 a small pumping plant was installed. Both of these projects were partial failures, and in 1916 the commissioners secured the services of the Edmund T. Perkins Engineering Company to formulate a plan for the more successful drainage of the district. On November 13, 1916, the commissioners filed their petition in the county court of Carroll county for authority to do work in accordance with plans, specifications, and profiles filed with the petition under section 37 of the Levee Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1919, c. 42). A number of objections were filed to the petition by Benjamin De La Vergne, William Bertholf, Augustus Leavens, and 11 other landowners of the district, December 2, 1916. A hearing was had before the county court on these objections, and on December 23, 1916, the court overruled the objections, and found in favor of the petitioners; approved the plans and specifications filed with and made a part of the petition; authorized the commissioners to erect, maintain, and operate the pumping plant mentioned in the petition, and to clean out the main ditch; to move and enlarge the levees, and to do all the work proposed and set forth in the petition and in the plans for additional reformation; to levy an assessment against the lands in the district according to benefits, and to raise the necessary money to pay the cost of doing the work, in the sum of $51,312; to levy an annual assessment of $3,500; to acquire the necessary right of way, and to make contracts to construct the work contemplated as proposed in their petition. The commissioners' roll of assessments of benefits and damages was filed April 7, 1917, and the court entered an order to impanel a jury to assess benefits and damages on any and all land in the district. On April 30, 1917, the objectors filed the following objection to the commissioners' roll of assessments of benefits and damages:

‘Because the petition filed in said cause November 13, 1916, praying for said assessment, made certain specifications a part of said petition in which specifications it is attempted to delegate authority that is conferred by law on the drainagecommissioners to the engineer, as mentioned in said specifications, and that for that reason said petition and the order entered thereon, purporting to authorize said commissioners to prepare a commissioners' roll of assessments of benefits and damages are both void.’

There is copied into the record by the clerk a purported motion by objectors to strike from the files the commissioners' roll of assessments of benefits and damages, dated April 30, 1917, for the same reasons set forth in their objections to the roll of assessments. Said objections and motion were overruled by the court, and a jury was impaneled to make the assessments of benefits and damages. The jury fixed the amount of assessments against objectors' land and the other land in the district, which was confirmed by the order of the court. There is also copied into the record by the clerk a purported motion for a new trial by objectors, setting forth as one of the grounds for the motion that the verdict of the jury is contrary to law; also a purported motion for arrest of judgment, setting forth the same ground therefor as above given for striking from the files the commissioners' roll of assessments. Benjamin De La Vergne, Elijah H. Dyson, Norman Leavens, A. Leavens, and William Bertholf have sued out this writ of error to review the...