Commissioners of Highways of Colfax Tp. v. Comm'rs of East Lake Fork Drainage Dist

Decision Date05 April 1889
Citation21 N.E. 206,127 Ill. 581
PartiesCOMMISSIONERS OF HIGHWAYS OF COLFAX TP. v. COMMISSIONERS OF EAST LAKE FORK DRAINAGE DIST.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from circuit court, Champaign county.

BAILEY, J., dissenting.

Gere & Philbrick, for appellants.

Francis M. Wright, for appellees.

SCHOLFIELD, J.

This was an action of debt for the amount of benefits assessed against certain highways. The defendants demurred to the declaration, but the court overruled the demurrer; and the defendants electing to stand by their demurrer, and refusing to answer over, judgment was given for the plaintiffs. The declaration alleges that plaintiff at the time mentioned therein was a duly-organized drainage district, under the act of the general assembly entitled ‘An act to provide for drainage for agricultural and sanitary purposes,’ etc., approved June 27, 1885; that certain public roads in the said town of Colfax are within the said organized district and the subdistricts of said drainage district; that the said commissioners of said district were on, to-wit, the 7th day of June, 1887, of the opinion that the said public highways of said town of Colfax, within said drainage district, would be benefited by the construction of the work in said district, etc., and, being of such opinion, did assess the said public roads such sums as would be just and equitable for said public roads to pay in proportion to the benefit received, etc., and that said commissioners of said drainage district did then and there determine, by estimating the amount of benefit to the entire district, including the benefits to said public roads, and also the benefit to said public roads, the fractional figures of 3-100, expressing the ratio between the sum of benefits for the whole district and the sum found to be the benefit to the said public roads, which said fractional figure 3-100, so fixed as aforesaid, does express the proportional part of the corporate taxes of the said district to be paid by the said public road; alleges that said fractional figures were duly entered on the classification made and filed with the county clerk on the 27th day of January, 1887; that the commissioners fixed the time and place for hearing objections to said classification; that they issued notices of the time and place of said meeting, and addressed them to all persons interested, which notices stated the object of the said meeting, and which notice was duly published as required by law, etc., copies of same mailed to commissioners of highways of Colfax township; that the commissioners of said drainage district met at the time and place designated in said notices, and heard all objections to said classification, and, after having heard all objections and made all corrections that justice required, sustained the said classification, and did confirm the said figure of 3-100 against the defendants, and did make an order of such confirmation, and filed the same with the county clerk on the 18th day of February, 1887, from which the defendants did not appeal, and the same remains now in full force, and said classification and order of confirmation are duly recorded in the drainage record, etc.; that the commissioners of said drainage district filed with the clerk their certificate, which was duly recorded, required $35,000 to be raised by special assessment upon the lands of said district which were benefited; that, upon computations made by the said clerk, the commissioners made out and filed a tax-list as required by law, in which said tax-list, upon the basis of said figure 3-100 classification, and the said $35,000 levy aforesaid, the amount assessed against the defendant for benefits to said public roads was and is $1,050, which said assessment roll or taxlist was confirmed by said commissioners, and on the 2d day of March, 1887, duly recorded in the drainage record, etc., and that the said sum of $1,050, with 8 per cent. interest from said 2d day of March, 1887, now remains due and unpaid; and the said drainage commissioners having duly divided the said drainage district into subdistricts, and certain public roads in said town of Colfax being within the subdistricts Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, and on the 28th day of October, 1887, the said commissioners of said drainage district being of the opinion that the said public highways in said town of Colfax within each of said subdistrictsnumbered as aforesaid would be benefited by the work in the said subdistricts, said drainage commissioners did assess to such public roads such sums as would be just and equitable for said public roads to pay in proportion to the benefits received by them by such work; and the said commissioners did then and there determine, by estimating the amount of benefits to each entire subdistrict, including the benefits to said public roads in each respective subdistrict, and also the benefits to such public roads, the fractional figures in each subdistrict expressing the ratio between the sum of the benefits for each district and the sum found to be the benefit to the public roads in each subdistrict, which said fractional figures in said respective subdistricts are as follows: Subdistrict No. 3, 1-20th; No. 5, 1-30th; No. 6, 1-16th; No. 7. 1-40th; No. 8, 1-40th; No. 9, 1-20th; No. 10, 1-7th; No. 11, 1-15th; No. 12, 1-16th; No. 13, 1-20th; No. 14, 1-8th; No. 15, 1-11th, and No. 16, 1-14th,-and were fixed as aforesaid, and do express the proportional part of the corporate taxes of the said subdistricts, respectively, to be paid by said public roads,-which said fractional figures the said drainage commissioners did respectively place against the public roads of said town of Colfax in each subdistrict in their tables of classification in said subdistricts, and duly filed the same with county clerk; that the commissioners fixed the time and place in each of said subdistricts to hear the objections to said classification, showing the places and times for such hearing in each of said districts; that they fixed a time and place for the hearing of the general and final objections to said classification; that they issued notices of the time and place of said meeting, and published the same, and sent notices as required to all persons interested; that the commissioners met at the respective times and places in said notices mentioned to hear all objections, etc., at which time they made such corrections as they deemed just, and that defendants appeared and objected to said classification; that the commissioners, after hearing the objections, confirmed the classification against the defendants, the figures remaining as above stated; that on the 26th day of September, 1887, they filed their order of confirmation with the county clerk; it was duly recorded and now remains in force and effect; that defendants did not appeal; that commissioners filed their certificate with the clerk, which was recorded, requiring the following sums for the said subdistricts: No. 3, $642; No. 5, $2,651; No. 6, $1,491; No. 7, $3,612; No. 8, $1,910; No. 9, $2,577; No. 10, $153; No. 11, $1,062; No. 12, $1,100; No. 13, $3,568; No. 14, $2,696; No. 15, $244; No. 16, $1,721,-to be raised by special assessment upon the lands benefited in said subdistricts; that the clerk computed and apportioned the said sums to the names of the owners according to the acreage and figure of classification, the amount or proportion of benefits; that upon this computation the commissioners made out their tax-list as required by law, and the amounts assessed against the defendants in each of said subdistricts for benefits to said public roads were as follows: Subdistrict No. 3, $32.10; No. 5, $88.37; No. 6, $93.19; No. 7, $90.30; No. 8, $47.75; No. 9, $128.85; No. 10, $21.86; No. 11, $70.80; No. 12, $68.75; No. 13, $178.40; No. 14, $337.00; No. 15, $22.18; No. 16, $122.93; that said amounts were entered on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Norborne Land Drain. Dist. v. Egypt Township, 29691.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 3 Septiembre 1930
    ... . 31 S.W.2d 201 . NORBORNE LAND DRAINAGE DISTRICT COMPANY OF CARROLL COUNTY . v. . EGYPT ... power to levy any taxes against the highways in the defendant townships, because: (a) The ... of the filing of the report of commissioners was in the form required by Sec. 4391, R.S. 1919, ......
  • Shibley v. Fort Smith & Van Buren District
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 31 Octubre 1910
    ...... commissioners of the district, which was found to contain a. ... Company v. Special Drainage District , 134 Ill. 384, 10 L. R. A. 285, 25 ......
  • Norborne Land Drainage Dist. Co. of Carroll County v. Cherry Valley Tp., of Carroll County
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 3 Septiembre 1930
    ...... highways in the defendant townships, because: (a) The. ... commissioners was in the form required by Sec. 4391, R. S. ......
  • Mound City Land & Stock Co. v. Miller
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 26 Noviembre 1902
    ...... conflict. Drainage of "contiguous borders of overflowed. lands and ...St. 78; Turlock Irrigation Dist. v. Williams, 76 Cal. 360; Garrett v. St. ... drained, the county court appointed commissioners, who. managed the work. The cost was apportioned ...Maynes, 97 Pa. 78; Comrs. of Highways v. Drainage Comrs., 127 Ill. 581, 21 N.E. 206; ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT