Henry Neill v. Jacob Leamer

• Decision Date: 29 November 1915
• Docket Number: No. 33,33
• Citation: 36 S.Ct. 54,60 L.Ed. 249,239 U.S. 244
• Parties: HENRY W. O'NEILL and Cornelius K. Hefferman, Plffs. in Err., v. JACOB F. LEAMER, John T. Daley, Fred Bartels, et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

239 U.S. 244

36 S.Ct. 54

60 L.Ed. 249

HENRY W. O'NEILL and Cornelius K. Hefferman, Plffs. in Err.,

v JACOB F. LEAMER, John T. Daley, Fred Bartels, et al.

No. 33.

Argued October 26 and 27, 1915.

Decided November 29, 1915.

Messrs. William V. Allen and M. D. Tyler for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. R. E. Evans and A. C. Strong for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice Hughes delivered the opinion of the court:

Under the laws of Nebraska (Laws 1905, chap. 161; Laws 1909, chap. 147; Cobbey's Anno. Stat. §§ 5561-5597; Rev. Stat. 1913, §§ 1797 et seq.) the district court of the state made an order organizing 'Drainage District No. 2 of Dakota County.' The lands embraced within the district lay to the southeast of the village of Jackson, and consisted of about 7,000 acres of swamp lands upon which were discharged the waters of Elk creek, coming from the northwest. It was recited in the order that the drainage of these lands would be 'a public utility,' and would 'be conducive to the public convenience, health, and welfare.' Plans were adopted which involved the construction of a ditch across lands of the plaintiffs in error for the purpose of carrying the waters of the creek to Jackson lake. These were lands which did not receive the flood waters of the creek, but were situated northeast of Jackson and outside the drainage district. The defendants in error, who had been chosen as supervisors of the drainage district, instituted condemnation proceedings in the county court for the purpose of making the necessary appropriation, and awards were made.

This action was then begun by the plaintiffs in error (and another) in the state court to enjoin the construction of the ditch. The plaintiffs assailed the Nebraska statute as repugnant to the state Constitution, and further averred that to permit the defendants to construct the ditch would deprive the plaintiffs of their property without due process of law and deny to them the equal protection of the laws, in violation of the 14th Amendment. It was alleged that the enterprise was 'wholly private and in the exclusive pecuniary interest of the so-called corporators' of the drainage district. The trial court made special findings, in substance, as follows: That the drainage district had been legally organized; that the defendants had been constituted its supervisors; that, in conformity with the statute, the drainage district had been declared by the district court, upon due notice to all interested parties, as required, to be a public corporation of the state; that the district had employed competent civil engineers who had made a complete plan, which had been presented and duly confirmed, for draining, reclaiming, and protecting the lands in the district from overflow; that the route and ditch, thus approved, provided the most feasible and the safest method for taking care of the waters of the creek; that the description of the ditch, as shown, was a 'definite and accurate description of a proper right of may' through the lands of plaintiffs and others; that having failed to agree with the plaintiffs as to the value of the right of way and the damages which would result from the construction and maintenance of the proposed ditch, the defendants as supervisors had applied to the county judge in the manner provided by law for the appointment of appraisers, who, having been duly appointed, and having entered upon their duties and viewed the premises, had fixed the value of the right of way and the damages to each of the plaintiffs at sums stated and had duly reported accordingly; that the outlet of the proposed ditch in Jackson lake was formerly the channel of the Missouri river at a low stage, and that by way of this lake there was an adequate and direct outlet for the water of the creek into that river without overflowing the plaintiffs' lands; and that the defendants had not claimed the right to enter upon these lands until the award of the appraisers should have been paid to the county judge for the benefit of the parties respectively. It was thereupon adjudged that when the awards were paid the temporary injunction which had been issued should be dissolved and the action dismissed. This judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of the state. 93 Neb. 786, 142 N. W. 112.

With many of the questions discussed in argument this court is not concerned. It has been held that under the state law the drainage district was a public corporation, duly organized, and was entitled to exercise the power of eminent domain. The propriety of the delegation of authority to the district court in the matter of the forma- tion of the drainage district is a state question. The attempt to invoke § 4 of article 4 of the Federal Constitution is obviously futile (Pacific States Teleph. & Teleg. Co. v. Oregon, 223 U. S. 118, 56 L. ed. 377, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 224), and the objection as to suffrage qualifications in connection with the organization and management of the district, sought to be based on the 15th Amendment, is likewise wholly devoid of substance. It is also manifest that the state provided a tribunal for the determination of the compensation due to the plaintiffs by reason of the appropriation in question. Constitution of Nebraska, art. 1. § 21; Laws of 1905, chap. 161, § 12; Cobbey's Anno. Stat. §§ 10157 et seq.; Rev. Stat. 1913, §§ 5940 et seq. Appraisers were appointed, and the plaintiffs had due notice of hearing; they had full opportunity to be heard, to present any relevant question, and to complain of any irregularity or error. The questions of fact as to the definite location of the ditch, the value of the right of way, and the extent of the damage to the property affected, which would be sustained through construction and operation, were the subject of determination in an appropriate proceeding¹ See United States v. Jones, 109 U. S. 513, 519, 27 L. ed. 1015, 1017, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 346; A. Backus Jr. & Sons v. Ft. Street Union Depot Co. 169 U. S. 557, 568, 569, 42 L. ed. 853, 858, 859, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 445; Hooker v. Los Angeles, 188 U. S. 314, 318, 47 L. ed. 487, 491, 63 L.R.A. 471, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 395; Appleby v. Buffalo, 221 U. S. 524, 532, 55 L. ed. 838, 842, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 699; McGovern v. New York, 229 U. S. 363, 370, 371, 57 L. ed. 1228, 1231, 1232, 46 L.R.A.(N.S.) 391, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 876. It is said that no notice to the plaintiffs was required or given of the application for the appointment of appraisers. As to this, however, no question of Federal right appears to have been raised or decided in the supreme court of the state, nor do we intimate that such a claim would have had basis, if made. It is plain that with respect to none of these matters is there any question for our review. Appleby v. Buffalo, 221 U. S. 524, 529, 55 L. ed. 838, 840, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 699.

The defendants in error have moved to dismiss upon the ground that there is no Federal question whatever presented by the record. But we think that the plaintiffs sufficiently raised the question whether the appropriation was essentially for a private purpose, and hence contrary to the 14th Amendment, as amounting to a deprivation of property without due process of law, and that their contention as to their Federal right in this respect was denied by the state court. In this view, jurisdiction attaches (Missouri P. R. Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U. S. 403, 417, 41 L. ed. 489, 495, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 130; Madisonville Traction Co. v. St. Bernard Min. Co. 196 U. S. 239, 251, 252, 49 L. ed. 462, 467, 468, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 251; Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361, 49 L. ed. 1085, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 676, 4 Ann. Cas. 1171; Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Min. Co. 200 U. S. 527, 50 L. ed. 581, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301, 4 Ann. Cas. 1174; Offield v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. 203 U. S. 372, 377, 51 L. ed. 231, 236, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 72; Hairston v. Danville & W. R. Co. 208 U. S. 598, 605, 606, 52 L. ed. 637, 639, 640, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 331, 13 Ann. Cas. 1008; Union Lime Co. v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 233 U. S. 211, 218, 58 L. ed. 924, 928, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 522), and we pass to the consideration of the statutory plan.

The provisions of the statute are elaborate, but the principal features may be briefly outlined. In a proceeding initiated by a majority in interest of the owners 'in any contiguous body of swamp or overflowed lands,' for the purpose of having such land reclaimed and protected from the effects of water, the district court for the proper county may declare the drainage district as defined to be a public corporation of the state. To this end, the initiating proprietors must file articles of association, giving the name of the proposed district, the number of years it is to continue, its extent, which must not be less than 160 acres, and an appropriate description of parcels and owners. Provision is made for summons to nonsigning owners of lands averred to be benefited, and for the hearing of objections to the organization. Property not benefited may be excluded from the district. If the organization is approved by the court, the clerk, within a time specified, is to call a meeting of the owners of the lands within the district for the election of a board of five supervisors, to be composed of such proprietors, and a majority of whom must be resident within the county or counties in which the district is situated; each owner is to have one vote for each acre owned. Under the direction of this board, which has defined authority and compensation, a topographical survey is to be made of the district, the various tracts and properties are to be classified according to benefits, which are to be assessed, and each parcel within the district is to bear its share of the entire cost and expenses incurred in making the improvements in...