Jackson v. Board of Sup'rs

• Decision Date: 12 April 1913
• Citation: 140 N.W. 849,159 Iowa 673
• Parties: GEORGE E. JACKSON, Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, et al., Appellees
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

140 N.W. 849

159 Iowa 673

GEORGE E. JACKSON, Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, et al., Appellees

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

April 12, 1913

Appeal from Sac District Court.--HON. M. E. HUTCHINSON, Judge.

APPEAL from an assessment of benefits to plaintiff's land, due to the establishment of a drainage district, which embraced the property. Plaintiff appealed, from the assessment made by the Board of Supervisors, to the District Court of Sac County, and upon that appeal the assessments were confirmed and approved, and from that finding he appeals to this court.

Affirmed.

Chas D. Goldsmith, for appellant.

R. L McCord, Jr. and James De Land, for appellees.

OPINION

DEEMER, J.

What is known as drainage district No. 19-26 of Sac and Buena Vista counties was regularly established by joint action of the boards of supervisors of said counties. The proposed plan of the engineer was adopted; ditches and drains were constructed according to these plans in due course; and assessments were made, for the cost of the improvement, upon the lands within the district according to the recommendations of the engineer in charge of the work.

Plaintiff owns the N. E. of the N.W. and the N.W. of the N.W. of section 4, each being fractional quarters, lying along the north line of Sac county, and aggregating something like sixty-two acres. These fractional forties were within the drainage district, and one of these was assessed in the sum of $ 525.60, and the other in the sum of $ 1,375.36, or in all $ 1,900.96. As no one contends that more than forty acres of the land receives a direct benefit by draining the water therefrom, it will be observed that this is a very large assessment. But it also appears that many other lands within the district were assessed as much, if not more, per acre than were the lands of plaintiff. One of the main purposes in view was the draining out, of what was known as, Rush Lake, a meandered body of shallow water covering something like four hundred acres, which, the state considered, was no longer available for any practical purpose, and which, it concluded, should be drained and the land sold. See Chapter 186, Acts of the Thirtieth General Assembly.

Soon after the sale, petitions were filed for the establishment of a drainage district, which, to be complete and effectual, it was thought should extend up to and embrace lands in the county adjoining Sac to the north, in which Rush Lake was situated. Embraced within the district was something like four thousand, eight hundred acres of land, and to make the system effective it was found necessary to construct an open ditch, some five miles in length, into which should be run at the upper end, one main line of tile and twelve lateral branches, amounting, in all, to several thousand linear feet. Rush Lake was near the center of the district, north and south, and at the north, or upper, end of the open ditch. Plaintiff's land is still north and was in the natural course of drainage from the north. Near the center of the two tracts there was a basin, which in wet times held considerable water, and during heavy rains a great deal of his land was flooded, and the highway to the north of the land was at times impassable. Plaintiff had undertaken to drain his land with an open ditch, and this was partially successful, although the testimony shows that his ditch would not and could not drain off the water in times of wet weather. Over his land came surface and overflow water from something like six hundred acres of land to the north. The main tile line, of which we have spoken, ran entirely across plaintiff's land and was buried from five to eight feet below the surface of the soil. The fall being small and the land quite level, the tile was placed at these depths in order that private tile lines might be connected therewith on the top, and the title itself was twenty-four inches in diameter where it crossed plaintiff's land and for some distance to the north. From that point on it was made smaller until it finally reached the northernmost tract in the district. The plan has been a success, but it has been an expensive one, and plaintiff now contends that the assessments made against his land are not only unjust and inequitable, and in excess of the benefits received, but practically confiscatory in character. Whether or not the proposed...