Gish v. Castner-Williams & Askland Drainage Dist.

• Decision Date: 12 November 1907
• Citation: 113 N.W. 757,136 Iowa 155
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Parties: GISH v. CASTNER-WILLIAMS & ASKLAND DRAINAGE DIST. ET AL.

136 Iowa 155

113 N.W. 757

GISH

v.CASTNER-WILLIAMS & ASKLAND DRAINAGE DIST. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 12, 1907.

Appeal from District Court, Hamilton County; W. D. Evans, Judge.

This is an appeal from an allowance of damages to plaintiff made by the district court upon appeal from the action of the board of supervisors in assessing damages to plaintiff due to the establishment of a drainage ditch over and across his land. Dismissed.J. M. Blake and D. C. Chase, for appellants.

Wesley Martin, for appellee.

DEEMER, J.

The record shows that Hamilton county alone appeared in the district court pursuant to the appeal from the action of the board of supervisors in assessing plaintiff's damages, and that it alone contested the case upon appeal. The Castner-Williams and Askland district was not represented, nor did it make any issue with the plaintiff over the amount to be awarded. The record recites in one place that the district served notice of appeal and in another that defendants served notice of appeal to this court. In so far as Hamilton county is concerned, it had no right of appeal, as it has no such interest in the controversy as entitled it to do so. Yockey v. Woodbury County, 130 Iowa, 412, 106 N. W. 950. The drainage district is not such an legal entity as is known to or recognized by law as a proper party to adversary proceedings. In the case just cited it is said that the petitioners for the construction of the ditch, or those whose lands are subjected in any way to a heavier assessment on account of failure to assess other lands, may be such parties. See, also, Henderson v. Calhoun County, 129 Iowa, 119, 105 N. W. 383.

None of the parties who were interested in the amount of the award--that is to say, none of the parties whose lands were to be assessed to pay the expenses of the improvement--served notice of appeal, and under the prior holdings of this court there is nothing before us for consideration. We may say, however, that we have examined the question argued by counsel, and find no prejudicial error. The point most relied upon is that the trial court erred in allowing witnesses to fix the damages at the time of trial rather than at the time when the drainage district was established, or ordered to be established. Appellants' contention is based upon the rule applicable to ordinary condemnation proceedings. But such rule is not applicable here, for the reason that by section 7, c. 68, p. 63, Acts 30th Gen....