Nutwood Drainage and Levee Dist. v. Mamer

• Decision Date: 26 November 1956
• Docket Number: 34170,Nos. 34030,s. 34030
• Citation: 139 N.E.2d 247,10 Ill.2d 101
• Parties: The NUTWOOD DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, Appellee and Appellant, v. L. H. MAMER et al., Appellants and Appellees.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 247

139 N.E.2d 247

10 Ill.2d 101

The NUTWOOD DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, Appellee and Appellant, v. L. H. MAMER et al., Appellants and Appellees.

Nos. 34030, 34170.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 26, 1956.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Jan. 23, 1957.

Thomas, Mulliken & Mamer, Champaign, and Richard W. Husted, Springfield, for appellants in No. 34030, and for appellees in No. 34170.

G. Russell Schwarz, Jerseyville (Harold G. Talley, Alton, of counsel), for appellee in No. 34030 and for appellant in No. 34170.

DAVIS, Justice.

In 1953 the Nutwood Drainage and Levee District, hereinafter called plaintiff district, filed in the circuit court of Jersey County, a petition for the appointment of a receiver to collect delinquent annual maintenance taxes from L. H. Mamer and and other members of the Mamer family for 1950, 1951 and 1952. This proceeding was brought pursuant to section 34c1 of the act of 1879 entitled, 'An Act to provide for the construction, reparation and protection of drains, ditches and levees, across the lands of others, for agricultural, sanitary and mining purposes, and to provide for the organization of drainage districts,' and hereinafter called the Levee Act. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1953, chap. 42, par. 33b1.) The petition alleged the legal organization and existence of the drainage district; that defendants were owners of certain described lands within the district, that in the following years the sums hereinafter set forth were duly levied against said lands as the annual maintenance tax of said district: in 1950 the sum of $3298.12; in 1951 the sum of $3664.43; and in 1952 the sum of $3664.43. The petition further alleged that all of said taxes are delinquent; that due diligence has been exercised for their collection; and that collection could be made through a receivership of the said real property. The answer of defendants admitted the legal organization of the district, and the ownership of lands within the district by defendants; admitted the attempt to collect and the refusal to pay the taxes, but the defendants denied 'that said sum was duly levied against said lands and aver to the contrary that the annual amount of benefits so charged against said lands is illegal and without authority of law.' The defendants further affirmatively alleged that the last assessment made by said drainage district against the lands in question assessed the total amount for annual benefits at $347.59, and that they have at all times been ready and willing to pay said amount for annual benefits. The plaintiff district filed a reply denying that the annual amount of benefits levied against said lands was illegal and without authority of law and that the total amount of annual benefits to the lands was $347.59 for each of the years 1950, 1951 and 1952. Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied, and defendants' motion for judgment at the close of plaintiff's case was reserved. On June 18, 1956, the trial court dismissed the petition for want of equity finding from the evidence that no jury had been impaneled in the county court of Jersey County to ascertain the 1950, 1951 and 1952 annual maintenance benefits against the respective tracts of land of the defendants as set out in the petition filed therein, and that it was without authority to appoint a receiver for the collection of said benefits. From this final decree plaintiff appeals directly to this court. This appeal was given Docket No. 34170, and for purposes of convenience in this opinion will be referred to as the receivership case.

Prior to the entry of the decree in the receivership case, the plaintiff district instituted a proceeding in the county court of Jersey County, pursuant to section 17 1/2 of the Levee Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1953, chap. 42, par. 21) by which it sought an increase in the amount of the assessment of annual maintenance benefits to the lands within said district to the sum of $30,000. The commissioners of the plaintiff district filed the 'Commissioners' roll of assessments of annual benefits and damages,' reflecting the increased amounts. The objectors, being the same parties as the defendants in the receivership case, owned 41 tracts of land included in the district. After hearing, the jury lowered the assessment on the objectors' 41 tracts of land. The plaintiff district then moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to all 41 tracts. The trial court granted the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to 26 tracts and confirmed the assessment as set forth in the 'Commissioners' roll of assessment of benefits and damages' as to said tracts, but denied the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and entered judgment on the verdict and entered the other 15 tracts. From this final order of the county court, the defendants appealed directly to this court, where in oral argument, the plaintiff district waived cross error. This appeal was here given docket number 34030 and for purposes of this opinion is referred to as the assessment case.

Since these separate appeals involve the same parties and property, and require a construction of the Levee Act and a consideration of practice and procedure thereunder, we have consolidated the cases for oral argument and opinion.

The plaintiff district, which comprises approximately 10,000 acres of land in Jersey and Green counties along the Illinois Rever, was duly organized in 1906 under the Levee Act. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1953, chap. 42, par. 1 et seq.) The defendants own about 1,075 acres of land within said district. On May 30, 1907, a jury in the county court of Jersey County ascertained by its verdict the annual amount of benefits which each tract of land in said district would sustain in keeping its levees and ditches in repair and in operating its pumping plant, and judgment was entered on said verdict by the county court of Jersey County. Under the judgment the lands of the defendants were assessed a total of $347.59 for annual maintenance benefits.

The plaintiff district is about 2 1/2 miles wide and 8 miles long, bordered on the east by river bluffs, on the morth by Macoupin Creek, on the west by the Illinois River and on the south by Otter Creek. It has levees on the north, west and south. A pumping plant is situated in the south end of the district and there the drain water is pumped over the levee into Otter Creek which flows westward to the Illinois River. There is a range in elevation within the plaintiff district from a low of 428 above sea level at the pumping plant to a high of 445 feet in the northeast part of the district. The Mamer lands lie generally in the north part of the district near the north levee, and about 8 miles from the pumping plant.

In the years 1946 through 1949, the commissioners of the plaintiff district filed their annual financial report in the county court of Jersey County showing the amount of money collected and the manner in which it was expended, together with their estimate of the amount necessary to keep the levees, ditches, drains and other works of the district in repair, to maintain and operate the pumping plant, and to pay expenses for the following year. In each of these years the county court entered an order reciting the giving of due notice; approving the report and estimate; finding the amount required as an assessment for the ensuing year; and ordering that such an amount be made the assessment on the lands within the plaintiff district. The county court in those years further ordered that the commissioners and treasurer make and spread upon the district books and against the lands, in the proportionate amount as theretofore assessed, a tax levy for the ensuing year of the amount found required. In 1946 and 1947 the amount found to be required as a tax levy was $29,935 and in 1948 and 1949 the amount of the tax levy was $30,000. The amounts assessed against defendants for these years were paid, the last two years being paid under protest. The same assessment procedure was followed by the plaintiff district for 1950, 1951 and 1952. In each of these years the county court entered an order approving the commissioners' report and estimate, and ordering the commissioners to proceed to collect the entire amount, except in the year 1950 when the court found that the commissioners would need only 90 per cent of the annual estimate for such purposes. The 1950, 1951 and 1952 orders, however, differed from the prior orders in that they did not purport to find the amount required as a tax levy for the ensuing year, or order that said amount be made a tax levy on the lands.

The statutory procedure for assessing annual maintenance taxes for a drainage district is clearly set forth in the Levee Act. The commissioner shall prepare the "Commissioners' roll of assessments of benefits and damages," which they file with the clerk of the county court, and, upon notice as provided in the act, a jury is impanelled to pass upon all questions of benefits and damages to the land in said district. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1953, chap. 42, par. 19.) The jury shall ascertain to the best of their ability and judgment the benefits which will accrue to the lands to be effected by the proposed work and, when directed by the court, may also ascertain the annual amount of benefits which each tract will sustain by keeping the levee, ditches, or other work in repair. After consideration of all evidence the jury by verdict shall find the total sum of the annual amount of benefits which the lands will sustain by keeping said levees, ditches or other work in repair, which verdict shall be signed by the jury and filed in the court. The court shall then confirm said verdict and enter a judgment thereon and cause the same to be spread upon the records, and such judgment and verdict shall be a lien upon such lands. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1953, chap. 42, par. 20.) In case an assessment of the annual benefit is not made at the time of the...