Craig v. People ex rel. Welsh
Decision Date | 20 December 1900 |
Citation | 188 Ill. 416,58 N.E. 1000 |
Parties | CRAIG et al. v. PEOPLE ex rel. WELSH. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Clark county; H. Van Sellar, Judge.
Quo warranto by the people, on the relation of William Welsh and others, against W.T. Craig and others. From a judgment in favor of relators, defendants appeal. Reversed.
1. Hurd's Rev.St.1899, p. 689, par. 85, declaring that the petition for the organization of a drainage district shall state the names and post-office addresses, so far as known, of the owners of the several tracts of land embraced within the district, is complied with where the petition states that annexed thereto, as a part of it, is a list or schedule showing the names and post-office addresses of such owners, and such a list is appended thereto; the list in such case being considered a part of the petition.
2. It is unnecessary to the validity of a petition for the organization of a drainage district under the act of June 27, 1885 (Hurd's Rev.St.1899, p. 687), and the amendatory act of June 10, 1897 (Hurd's Rev.St.1899, p. 720), that it should describe the different tracts of land owned by petitioners, or that in giving the names and post-office addresses of the owner of land in the district, as required by section 11, the lands owned by them should be described, since whether petitioners are owners of the required major portion of the land in the proposed district, and constitute one-third of the owners, is to be determined prima facie by the drainage commissioners at a meeting to be held pursuant to section 13, and conclusively determined at a subsequent meeting to be held as required by section 15.
3. The prima facie finding of drainage commissioners as to the sufficiency of a petition for the organization of a drainage district under such acts is undisturbed by an attack made thereon in quo warranto, to test the validity of the organization, for errors, discrepancies, omissions, and possibly misdescription of land, unnecessarily inserted in the petition, and constituting mere surplusage, as they are presumed to have been discovered and explained in the preliminary and final hearings before the board.
4. There is no force in an objection to a plea to an information in the nature of quo warranto, to test the organization of a drainage district under such acts, that it does not appear therefrom that the time for the first meeting of the drainage commissioners was not fixed or determined on by the commissioners, where the plea avers that the time and place of the meeting were “decided on by the commissioners.”
5. The information purported to contain true copies of the petition and of the record of the drainage district as to all proceedings taken by the commissioners under the petition; and among them was a copy of the proceedings and findings of the board at its January meeting, 1899, reciting the presentation of the petition, and that they decided to hold a meeting to consider the same January 21, 1899. Held to furnish sufficient proof of the averment of the plea thereto that the time and place of their first meeting were decided on by the commissioners.
6. Drainage Act 1885, § 12, expressly making it the duty of the town clerk to give notices of the first meeting of the drainage commissioners to organize a drainage district, was not affected by the amendment of section 2, constituting him the clerk of the commissioners, by the act of 1897, providing that they shall select one of their own number to act as clerk, and keep the record of the board, etc.; the latter's duties not extending that which by sections 11 and 12 the town clerk was required to perform before the organization of a district.
J.W. & E.C. Craig and J.W. Graham, for appellants. Golden, Scholfield & Booth, for appellees.
This was an information in the nature of quo warranto to test the validity of the organization of drainage district No. 1 of the town of York, in the county of Clark. The court overruled a general demurrer to the information,and required the appellants to plead thereto. A plea setting out in detail the steps taken to perfect the organization of the district under the provisions of an act entitled “An act to provide for drainage for agricultural and sanitary purposes,” etc., approved June 27, 1885 (Hurd's Rev.St.1899, p. 687), and the act amendatory thereof approved June 10, 1897 (Hurd's Rev.St.1899, p. 720), was held, on the presentation of a demurrer thereto, insufficient to show the district had been legally organized. The purpose of the organization of the proposed district was to secure a system of combined drainage, and the petitiontherefor was under section 11 of chapter 42 of the said act (Hurd's Rev.St.1899, p. 689, par. 85), as being the petition of the owners of a major part of the land in the proposed district, and of one-third or more of the owners of the land in the district.
It was asserted in behalf of the demurrer that it appeared from the face of the petition set forth in the plea that such petition did not bear the signatures of the owners of a major part of the lands in the district, and that therefore the commissioners of highways of said town of York, being, under the provisions of section 1 of the said act, ex officio drainage commissioners, were without jurisdiction to take any steps in the matter of the organization of the alleged drainage district. The concluding sentence of said section 11 of said act provides that the petition shall state the names and post-office addresses, so far as known, of the owners of the several tracts of land embraced within the district. In the body of the petition here involved it is stated that annexed thereto, as a part of the petition, is a list or schedule showing the names and post-office addresses of said owners. Appended to the petition was a list setting forth the names and post-office addresses, so far as known, of all owners of the land to be embraced within the district. It is objected that this list or schedule cannot be considered as a part of the petition, but no reasonis advanced for that view, and we think none exists to be suggested. It was recited in the petition that the signers thereto were the owners of the major part of the land in the proposed district, and, in point of numbers, constituted one-third or more of the persons owning land in the district. It appeared from the plea the petition was accompanied by the affidavit of two credible signers of the petition, stating, to quote therefrom, that “they have examined said petition, and are acquainted with the locality of the district proposed, and that they believe that said petition is signed by the owners of the major part of the lands, and who constitute one-third or more of the owners of the land in the proposed district,” as in compliance with the provisions of section 13 of the act (Hurd's Rev.St.1899, c. 42, par. 87). The body of the petition contained a description of the governmental subdivisions of land proposed to be included in the district. Opposite the signature of each petitioner was written the description, by governmental subdivisions, of tracts of land as being the tracts owned by the petitioners, respectively; and, in preparing the schedule or list of the names of the persons owning lands in the proposed district,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People ex rel. Deck v. McDonald
...provisions of the other. To the same effect is People v. Crews, 245 Ill. 318, 92 N. E. 245. Counsel cite and rely on Craig v. People, 188 Ill. 416, 421, 58 N. E. 1000, 1002. While there are some expressions in that case which might be held to support appellants' contention on this point, th......
-
People ex rel. Fitton v. Ehler
...Richland Drainage District v. Karr, 280 Ill. 567, 117 N. E. 770. The rule is the same under the Farm Drainage age Act. Craig v. People, 188 Ill. 416, 58 N. E. 1000. The appellees cite and rely upon Drummer Creek Drainage District v. Roth, 244 Ill. 68, 91 N. E. 63, 65, and Soldier Creek Drai......
-
Dover Lumber Co. v. Board of Com'rs of Mosley Creek Drainage Dist.
...any assessment against a person who is not so notified. Yolo Co. Reclamation District v. Burger, 122 Cal. 442, 55 P. 156; Craig v. People, 188 Ill. 416, 58 N.E. 1000; McMullen v. State, 105 Ind. 334, 4 N.E. In the Supreme Court of the United States it has been held, in the enforcement of a ......
-
Elsberry Drainage District v. Meyer
... ... v. Burger, 122 Cal. 442; People v. Reclamation ... District, 121 Cal. 522; Craig v. People, 188 ... Ill ... 404. Laws 1913, p. 241, sec. 16, and p. 254, sec. 40; ... State ex rel. v. Weithaupt, 254 Mo. 329. The notice ... is sufficient to give the ... ...