People ex rel. Freshwater v. Bonham
| Decision Date | 06 February 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 12404.,12404. |
| Citation | 121 N.E. 559,286 Ill. 286 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. FRESHWATER, County Collector, v. BONHAM et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Wayne County Court; Peter C. Walters, Judge.
Proceedings by the People, on the relation of E. D. Freshwater, County Collector, for judgment against the lands of C. E. Bonham and others, to which landowners objected. Objections sustained, and judgment refused, and relator appeals. Affirmed.
Kraft, Kraft & Erskine, of Chicago (F. Wm. Kraft, or Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
William T. Bonham and Richard L. Boggs, both of Fairfield, for appellees.
The Borah drainage district in Wayne county was organized under the Levee Act in 1911, and has been the subject of considerable litigation. An assessment was levied and confirmed against the lands of the district. The assessment was divided into installments, and at the June term, 1918, of the county court of Wayne county, the county collector applied for judgment against the lands of owners who had failed or refused to pay the assessment. objections to judgment by the landowners were sustained and judgment refused, from which action this appeal is prosecuted.
It appears that after the assessment was confirmed, bonds were issued and sold to raise the money to do the work in the district, and the bondholders are really the beneficial parties appellant.
On March 11, 1911, a petition was filed in the county court of Wayne county for the organization of the Borah drainage district under the Levee act. Judgment of organization was subsequently entered, from which judgment several landowners in the proposed district perfected an appeal to this court. The judgment of the county court was reversed on the ground that the district as proposed embraced land lying in two different watersheds and also because one of the laterals in the proposed system was not properly described in the petition. The cause was remanded for further proceedings in conformity with the views expressed in the opinion. Borah Drainage District v. Ankenbrand, 260 Ill. 335, 103 N. E. 261. Thereafter the mandate of the court was filed and the cause reinstated in the county court. A motion was then made by those opposing the organization of the district, to dismiss the petition. This motion was overruled, and the county court entered an order referring the petition back to the commissioners, with directions to exclude from the district lands lying east of Shelton ridge, which were in a different watershed from the other lands in the proposed district, and modify their report so as to make it conform to those directions. The commissioners modified their report by striking out the lands and ditches east of Shelton ridge, and the objectors again moved to dismiss the petition. The motion was overruled, the report further amended, and as amended it was confirmed and a judgment entered declaring the district duly organized. A writ of error was later sued out of this court to reverse that judgment. The petition had never been amended to conform to the decision of this court in 260 Ill., and it was held, when it was before us the second time (Borah Drainage District v. Ankenbrand, 279 Ill. 488,177 N. E. 139), that the entry of the judgment of organization without amending the petition to conform to the views expressed by this court in its first opinion was erroneous; that the decision in that case was the law of the case and the county court was bound to treat the petition as insufficient. The court said:
After the second judgment of organization was entered, in May, 1914, and before the writ of error was sued out in the case reported in 279 Ill., the assessment of the lands in the district was levied and confirmed by judgment entered in August, 1914. The writ of error in the case reported in 279 Ill. brought up for review the entire...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. McCarthy v. Firek
...ex rel. Lerch v. Sandman, 338 Ill. 404, 170 N.E. 211; People ex rel. Shrout v. Long, 328 Ill. 297, 159 N.E. 259; People ex rel. Freshwater v. Bonham, 286 Ill. 286, 121 N.E. 559. As to that we express no opinion. But even in those cases where the taxpayer is not wholly deprived of a remedy, ......
- People ex rel. Black v. Armstrong
-
Western Shade Cloth Co. v. Indus. Comm'n
...exactly the same as if no decree or order had been entered. People v. Wabash Railway Co., 322 Ill. 185, 152 N. E. 601;People v. Bonham, 286 Ill. 286, 121 N. E. 559;Miller v. Doran, 245 Ill. 200, 91 N. E. 1039;Ure v. Ure, 223 Ill. 454, 79 N. E. 153,114 Am. St. Rep. 336. By analogy, when the ......
-
Lackey v. Pulaski Drainage Dist.
...and, again assuming the invalidity of the assessments, no doubt their objections would be sustained. People ex rel. Freshwater v. Bonham, 286 Ill. 286, 121 N.E. 559. In addition, assuming the plaintiffs seek to follow the remedy of filing objections to the assessment, they would be entitled......