People ex rel. Fish v. Bradshaw, 14221.

• Decision Date: 04 October 1922
• Docket Number: No. 14221.,14221.
• Citation: 303 Ill. 558,136 N.E. 466
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. FISH, County Collector, v. BRADSHAW.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

303 Ill. 558

136 N.E. 466

PEOPLE ex rel. FISH, County Collector,

v.BRADSHAW.

No. 14221.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 21, 1922.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 4, 1922.

Proceedings for collection of a drainage assessment by the People on the relation of George A. Fish, County Collector, against John R. Bradshaw, objector. From a judgment against the lands of the objector, he appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Sangamon County Court; John B. Weaver, Judge.

Redmon, Hogan & Redmon, of Decatur, and Sampson & Giffin, of Springfield, for appellant.

C. Fred Mortimer, State's Atty., and W. J. Miller, both of Springfield, and Leslie J. Taylor, of Taylorville, for appellee.

THOMPSON, C. J.

Union drainage district No. 1 of the towns of Lanesville and Illiopolis, in Sangamon county, was organized in 1880 under the original Farm Drainage Act of 1879 (Laws 1879, p. 120). An open main ditch and laterals were constructed, and nothing further seems to have been done until 1919, when a movement was inaugurated to revive the district and reconstruct and enlarge the drainage system. No classification of the lands of the district had been made, and, in order to acquire the authority to levy an assessment upon the lands included within the district, the commissioners proceeded to classify the lands in accordance with the provisions of section 21 of the Farm Drainage Act. Hurd's Stat. 1921, p. 1245. The lands of appellant, John R. Bradshaw, concerning which this litigation arises, being the east half of the northwest quarter of section 32, township 17 north, range 2 west of the third principal meridian, were classified on the graduated scale at 30. On the date fixed for hearing objections to the classification, June 12, 1920, appellant appeared at the meeting and objected to the classification of his lands. His objections were overruled by the commissioners, and an order was entered by them confirming the classification as originally made. From that order of confirmation appellant appealed to the county court in accordance with the provisions of section 24 of the act.

Thereafter a trial was had at the February, 1921, term of the county court of Sangamon county, resulting in a verdict of confirmation of the classification, and a judgment was accordingly entered. Thereupon the commissioners assessed appellant's lands the sum of $600. There was no appeal from this order of the commissioners, the assessment was not paid, and the treasurer of the district certified it to the county collector as delinquent. Thereafter appellee made application for judgment and order of sale of the 80-acre tract of land. To this application appellant interposed 22 written objections. Objections 15 to 22 questioned the constitutionality of various sections of the Farm Drainage Act, but these objections have been abandoned. Objections 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, and 13 were stricken upon motion of appellee, and the remaining objections were overruled. Judgment was entered against the lands of appellant, and he appealed.

The appellant's objections may be classified into three groups, the first group being those objections which raise the question of the validity of the order of classification, the second group questioning the method by which the commissioners spread the assessment and ascertained the amount thereof, and the third group charging that the assessment exceeds the amount of the benefits.

This proceeding is collateral to the proceedings in the county court confirming the classification of the appellant's lands, and no objections can be urged in this proceeding except such as question the jurisdiction of the court. Spring Creek Drainage District v. Highway Com'rs, 238 Ill. 521, 87 N. E. 394;Walker v. People, 202 Ill. 34, 66 N. E. 827. Appellant has had his day in court on the question of the validity of the classification of his lands and has had an opportunity to raise all the questions which he desired to raise with respect to this classification. All the rights of the property owner in respect to the classification of lands within the district are fully protected by the provisions of the act, and, if he neglects to avail himself of the right of redressing any wrong or of correcting any error in the classification, he cannot be heard to complain at another time and in another proceeding. He cannot, on application for judgment against his lands for a delinquent drainage assessment, raise the question of classification. People v. Chapman, 127 Ill. 387, 19 N. E. 872;People v. Hulin, 237 Ill. 122, 86 N. E. 666;People v. Le Tempt, 272 Ill. 586, 112 N. E. 335, 9 A. L. R. 835.

The objection that this classification is void, because the commissioners did not...