People ex rel. Howard v. Schnepp

• Decision Date: 17 April 1899
• Citation: 179 Ill. 305,53 N.E. 632
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. HOWARD et al. v. SCHNEPP et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

179 Ill. 305

53 N.E. 632

PEOPLE ex rel. HOWARD et al.

v.SCHNEPP et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 17, 1899.

Error to circuit court, Christian county; James A. Creighton, Judge.

Information in the nature of quo warranto, on the relation of Michael Howard and another, against George Schnepp and others. Demurrers to pleas were overruled, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.

E. A. Humphreys, State's Atty., J. C. McBride, and W. M. Provine, for plaintiffs in error.

James M. Taylor and James B. Ricks, for defendants in error.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

The state's attorney of Christian county asked leave of the circuit court of that county to file an information, on the relation of Michael Howard and Thomas E. Butler, against the defendants in error, acting as commissioners of drainage district No. 3, in South Fork township, in said county, challenging the legality of the organization of said district. The leave was granted, and, the information having been filed, the defendants in error were summoned to answer. The ground of the claim that the district was never legally created is that it was organized under section 76 of the drainage act in force July 1, 1885, providing for drainage districts by user, and the organization only included that part of the lands through which the ditches had been constructed by voluntary action which were located in the town of South Fork, and did not include a large body of land embraced in the district as before existing by user, situated in the town of King. The claim is that there was no jurisdiction to organize the district without including all the lands embraced in the system of drainage before existing by the voluntary action of the owners. The interest of the relators, averred by amendment to the information, is that their lands are near the mouth or outlet of the ditch, and that the burden and expense to be borne by them are much greater than they would have been, if all the lands situated in the district by user had been included in the drainage district as organized. The question whether such an organization is legal was raised by a demurrer to a replication of plaintiffs to the first plea of defendants. The demurrer was sustained, and plaintiffs elected to stand by their replication. The amended pleas set out the organization of the district, and the third and fifth pleas aver that the information is prosecuted at the several instance and procurement, and for the sole benefit, of the relators; that they both had full notice of every step taken in the organization of the district, and were both present at every meeting of the commissioners prior to and at the time of such organization, and at the time set for hearing objections to the graduated scale of benefits adopted for the lands in the district, and made no objection to any of said proceedings; that the district was organized June 15, 1887, and each one was given credit for the ditch already on his lands, and said ditches were improved, and the lands were given excellent outlets, in the fall of that year; that the...