Evans v. Lewis
| Citation | 13 N.E. 246,121 Ill. 478 |
| Parties | EVANS and others v. LEWIS and others. |
| Decision Date | 27 September 1887 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Champaign county; C. B. SMITH, Judge.
E. L. Sweet and Wm. B. Webber, for appellants.
Francis M. Wright, for appellees.
This was a bill in equity brought by the appellants to enjoin the collection of a special assessment levied by the commissioners of Big Slough special drainage district, in Champaign county. In the amended bill it is alleged that on or about the eighth day of June, 1880, under an order of the county court of Champaign county, pursuant to law then in force, a drainage district was organized under the corporate name of ‘Big Slough Special Drainage District,’ which district embraced certain lands situated in the towns of Ludlow, Rantoul, East Bend, and Condit, and its boundary lines then established, under an act entitled ‘An act to provide,’ etc., approved May 29, 1879, and now pretends to operate under an act entitled ‘An act to provide for drainage for agricultural and sanitary purposes and to repeal certain acts therein named,’ approved in 1885; that orators are the owners of the following-described lands, not situated within said district, (describing them;) that, as such owners of lands lying out of said district, they, or either of them, have not connected the drainage of their said lands with the ditches of said district since its organization, or since the completion of any supposed ditches of said district, and that no tract of said land is involved in the same system of drainage of said district; that said lands do not require a connection with the said drainage district, to protect the same from wash or overflow, and that for agricultural and sanitary purposes complainants' said lands are not benefited by being connected with said drainage system, or included in said district. The drainage commissioners of said district, without lawful authority, have enlarged the boundaries of said district, or claim to have done so, by including in said district the lands above described; that said commissioners took said action of their own determination, without a petition being presented to them of as great a proportion of land-owners of the districtso pretended to be enlarged as required by law for the formation of an original district; that no notice was given complainants of the pending of any proceedings to attach their lands to said drainage district; that said commissioners have assessed said lands for drainage purposes, and threaten to collect the same by process of law.
The defendants answered the bill, admitting the organization of Big Slough drainage district, and that Thomas A. Lewis is the treasurer of said district, and that the defendants are the commissioners thereof; that complainants own the lands as stated in said bill; deny that said lands are outside of the district, but, on the contrary, have been duly and lawfully included in said district; they were proper lands to be so included; deny that the boundaries of said district were extended without lawful authority. Defendants deny that complainants were denied the right and opportunity to show that these lands were not washed or overflowed, but, on the contrary, due and legal notice was given of the time and place of the meeting of said commissioners, when and where they would hear objections to the classification of said lands, as by law required; that all other notices required by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Red River Valley Brick Co. v. City of Grand Forks
... ... 401; ... Osborn v. People, 103 Ill. 224; Blake v ... People, 109 Ill. 504; Keigwin v. Drainage ... Comrs. 115 Ill. 347, 5 N.E. 575; Evans v ... Lewis, 121 Ill. 478, 13 N.E. 246; Bodman v. Lake ... Fork Special Drainage Dist. 132 Ill. 439, 24 N.E. 630; ... People ex rel. Wood v ... ...
-
Telfer v. School Dist. No. 31 of Blaine County, 5602
... ... the district as a whole and this cannot be done in this kind ... of a proceeding. (State v. Evans, 82 Ore. 46, 160 ... P. 140, 143; School Dist. No. 115 v. School Dist. No. 54, 34 ... Ore. 97, 55 P. 98; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R. Co. v ... organization of District No. 31 as to the 68 sections of land ... involved. (22 R. C. L. 670; Evans v. Lewis, 121 Ill ... 478, 13 N.E. 246.) ... We ... hold, School District No. 31, having existed, exercising all ... the functions of a public ... ...
-
People ex rel. Slusser v. Gary
...warranto. Osborn v. People, 103 Ill. 224;Blake v. People, 109 Ill. 504;Keigwin v. Commissioners, 115 Ill. 347, 5 N. E. 575;Evans v. Lewis, 121 Ill. 478, 13 N. E. 246;Renwick v. Hall, 84 Ill. 162. It is true that appellant demurred to the plea now under consideration, and, when the demurrer ......
-
Payson v. People ex rel. Parsons
...and Osborn v. People, 103 Ill. 224;Blake v. People, 109 Ill. 504;Keigwin v. Commissioners, 115 Ill. 347, 5 N. E. 575;Evans v. Lewis, 121 Ill. 478, 13 N. E. 246;Bodman v. Drainage Dist., 132 Ill. 439, 24 N. E. 630; and People v. Jones, 137 Ill. 35, 27 N. E. 294,-are cited as sustaining this ......