North Richland Drainage Dist. v. Karr

• Decision Date: 07 December 1917
• Docket Number: No. 11510.,11510.
• Citation: 117 N.E. 770,280 Ill. 567
• Parties: NORTH RICHLAND DRAINAGE DIST. v. KARR et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

280 Ill. 567

117 N.E. 770

NORTH RICHLAND DRAINAGE DIST.

v.KARR et al.

No. 11510.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 23, 1917.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 1917.

Error to St. Clair County Court; J. B. Messick, Judge.

Proceeding for organization of the North Richland Drainage District. Judgment was rendered against Theodore Karr and others therein, and they bring error. Affirmed.William H. Pfingsten and Louis J. Grossmann, both of Belleville, for plaintiffs in error.

P. K. Johnson, of Belleville (A. H. Baer, of Belleville, of counsel), for defendant in error.

CARTER, C. J.

This was a proceeding in the county court of St. Clair county under the Levee Act for organizing the North Richland drainage district, and for the ascertainment of damages to lands proposed to be taken, and benefits and damages to lands not taken, said improvement to be constructed by special assessment. The county court entered an order organizing the district, and thereafter plaintiffs in error filed a motion to set aside said order on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction, under the petition, to enter it. The motion was overruled, and a hearing was had before a jury, as to the property of plaintiffs in error, for the amount or benefits and damages, and judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict on those questions. This writ of error was thereafter sued out to review the proceedings in the county court.

The proposed district is about 1 2/5 miles in length, and varies in width from about 200 feet at its narrowest to about 900 feet at its widest part. The greater portion of the district lies within the city limits of the city of Belleville, in said St. Clair county. A natural channel, known as Richland creek, now flows lengthwise through the proposed district and drains it. The plan of the proposed district, according to the petition, is:

To ‘deepen, widen, and straighten said creek, and to relocate the channel thereof wherever within said proposed district the same may be deemed necessary, and in furtherance of this purpose to construct a ditch, with levees when necessary, following the general course of said creek, or a lower level, with sufficient width and fall to drain properly the territory described herein for sanitary purposes, to keep the channel of said ditch free and clear from driftwood and obstructions, and otherwise to provide, maintain, and keep in repair a complete and general system of drainage for sanitary purposes for the lands lying within the boundaries of said proposed district.’

The hearing on the original petition was set for January 19, 1916, no objections being filed at said hearing by any of the plaintiffs in error. On said January 19th the court granted the petitioners leave to amend the petition by inserting the words ‘an open’ after the word ‘construct,’ and thereafter entered a default against all property owners mentioned in the petition except eight, who were given until January 31st to file objections. On the last-mentioned date the objections of said eight property owners were withdrawn and default entered against all objectors. Thereafter the court appointed commissioners, as required by statute, and continued the case to March 29, 1916, for their report. Said commissioners filed their report, estimating the probable cost of the work at $79,000, and the probable annual cost of keeping the same in repair at $50, and that the probable aggregate amount of damages to lands taken would be $6,000. The trial court fixed the hearing on said report for April 26, 1916. No objections were filed to the said report, and on that date default was enfered as to all parties, and an order was entered approving the report of said commissioners and for the organization of said district. On June 17th, the commissioners filed their original assessment roll of benefits and damages, fixing the total benefits at $79,000, of which $59,545 was assessed against the city of Belleville for and on account of its streets, alleys, and lands lying within the boundaries of said district, and fixing the total damages for lands taken for right of way at $2,441. It appearing on this hearing that the commissioners were unable to obtain such right of way from some of the landowners, on the last-mentioned date the court ordered a jury to be drawn, in accordance with the provisions of the Eminent Domain Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1915-16, c. 47), to hear and determine all questions of benefits and damages to any of the land in said district, and issued a venire therefor, returnable July 31, 1916. A number of continuances were thereafter entered by the court, the last one to August 19, 1916. On August 12, 1916, plaintiffs in error filed their legal objections to said proceedings, and on August 19th the petitioner, by its counsel, filed its motion to amend the petition by correcting the typewritten portions thereof so as to change the names of the various purported owners of the land lying within the proposed district to conform to their signatures; also by adding thereto a description and ownership of a number of tracts which had been omitted from the original petition, and to add to said petition ‘the streets, alleys and public places in the city of Belleville lying and being within the limits' of said district; also for leave to file an amended assessment roll, adding property omitted from the original roll and inserting the number of acres in each tract assessed. Plaintiffs in error objected to said amendments, but their objections were overruled, and the motion to amend allowed.

The principal legal objections urged by counsel for plaintiffs in error are that the petition is not sufficient to describe the drainage ditch so as to give the court jurisdiction;that it fails to describe with sufficient accuracy its course and distances, fails to locate the places where the new ditch is to follow the old channel or where the new ditch is to commence or to end, and fails to give the number of the new ditches or the location, character, approximate size of any of them, nor does it describe the levees proposed to be built or attempt to locate them or give the size and dimensions thereof.

It is clear from reading the petition that the improvement contemplated a single ditch without laterals, and that it was necessarily an open ditch.

The petition refers in several places to existing monuments. It is clear from the arguments in the briefs, taken in connection with the description in the petition, that no question is raised that these monuments, streets, and other physical objects exist in fact and could be readily located by one competent to make a survey from the description given in the petition. Reference to existing monuments is a usual and approved method for describing real estate. People v. Willison, 237 Ill. 584, 86 N. E. 1094;City of Lincoln v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co., 262 Ill. 11, 104 N. E. 277;City of Highwood v. Chicago & Milwaukee Electric Railroad Co., 268 Ill. 482, 109 N. E. 270. The description given is sufficient to enable a competent surveyor to locate the courses and distances of the ditches within the proposed drainage district, and that is all the law requires. People v. Willison, supra; People v. Brown, 261 Ill. 73, 103 N. E. 559. A description of real estate which refers to objects as fixed and existing will be presumed to be correct, and it will be presumed that the things referred to as monuments can be found. Ogden & Co. v. City of Chicago, 224 Ill. 294, 79 N. E. 699. The Levee Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1915-16, c. 42) only contemplates that the petitioner shall propose, in a general way, a plan of the work desired to be done. It does not contemplate that the petition shall contain such information as would constitute specifications upon which bids for doing the proposed work might be made. It is only necessary that the petition should specify the starting point and terminus of each ditch, together with its general route, so as to afford reasonably accurate information to the parties interested of the extent and general course of each ditch. It is not necessary in such petition to describe the improvement with the same accuracy which would be required in letting a contract for its construction. Wayne City Drainage District v. Boggs, 262 Ill. 338, 104 N. E. 676. See, also, as to the necessity for details of the proposed improvement in the petition, Stokes v. Bay Bottoms Drainage District, 278 Ill. 390, 116 N. E. 109. We thing the description here as to the starting point, route, and terminus comes within the reasoning of the cases just cited, and that plaintiffs in error's motion to set aside the order organizing the district because of...