Powand v. Little Vermilion Special Drainage Dist.

• Decision Date: 21 June 1912
• Citation: 98 N.E. 969,254 Ill. 543
• Parties: POWAND v. LITTLE VERMILION SPECIAL DRAINAGE DIST.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

254 Ill. 543

98 N.E. 969

POWAND

v.LITTLE VERMILION SPECIAL DRAINAGE DIST.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 21, 1912.

Appeal from Vermilion County Court; Lawrence T. Allen, Judge.

Proceeding by the Little Vermilion Special Drainage District. From a judgment of the county court dismissing an appeal from action of the commissioners of the district, overruling his objections to a new classification of the lands in the district, Isaac Rowand appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Rearick & Meeks, for appellant.

Ray, Dobbins & Dobbins, for appellee.

VICKERS, J.

The Little Vermilion Special Drainage District was organized under the Farm Drainage Act by an order of the county court of Champaign county, and includes within its boundaries lands in both Champaign and Vermilion counties. In the spring of 1911 the commissioners of that district determined to do some work to improve the main ditch, and, being of the opinion that the original classification was not fairly adjusted on the several tracts of land, they determined to make a new classification. This they did, and, having filed the same, May 1, 1911, was set for a hearing on the new classification. Appellant, Isaac Rowand, was the owner of about 700 acres of land in Vermilion county, which was included cluded in the drainage district, and was affected by the new classification. At the time and place fixed for the hearing, Isaac Rowand appeared and made objections to the new classification, claiming that his lands were classified too high. Ater hearing his objections, the commissioners, on May 3, 1911, overruled the same and filed the classification with the county clerk of Champaign county. For the purpose of obtaining the judgment of the county court upon the objections to the classification of his land, Rowand filed an appeal bond with the county clerk of Champaign county within the time provided by law, and the county clerk of Champaign county, in accordance with the practice announced by this court in Commissioners of Subdistrict v. McNulta, 242 Ill. 461, 90 N. E. 223, prepared a transcript and sent the same to the county court of Vermilion county. The cause was placed on the docket of the county court of Vermilion county, and, after several continuances, at the January term, 1912, the drainage commissioners entered their motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the county court had no jurisdiction of the the cause nor of the appeal, alleging that no appeal lies from the classification by drainage commissioners to the county court. This motion was sustained, and the appeal was dismissed by the county court, on the ground that the statute allowing an appeal in such a case to the county court is unconstitutional and void. Appellant excepted to the action of the court, and has brought the record to this court by appeal for review.

Section 24 of the Farm Drainage Act (Hurd's Stat. 1911, p. 907) provides: ‘Any person appearing and urging objections, who is not satisfied with the decision of the commissioners, may appeal from their decision to the county court of the county in which the lands affected are situated within ten days after the decision of the commissioners was rendered, by filing with the county clerk a bond with security,’ etc. Section 25 of said act provides for the manner of hearing in the county court, and also for a further appeal to the circuit court in case the county court, in the exercise of its discretion, shall make an order allowing a further appeal to the circuit court; otherwise the decision rendered by the jury in the county court is conclusive and final. If an appeal be granted to the circuit court, the statute makes the classification as fixed in the circuit court final. Inasmuch as the above statutory provisions provide for appeals in this class of cases, the only question presented for our consideration is the validity of the statute.

In Conover v. Gatton, 251 Ill. 587, 96 N. E. 522, this court held that section 106 of the Road and Bridge Act, applicable to counties not under township organization (Hurd's Stat. 1909, p. 1953), which provides for an appeal to the county or circuit court, by any person interested, from the decision of the road commissioners in determining to or in refusing to lay out, alter, widen, or vacate any road, or revoking any previous order or decision relative to any road, did not confer jurisdiction upon the circuit court to review the decision of the highway commissioners determining to vacate a public road. The decision in that case is relied on by appellee to sustain the action of the court below in dismissing the appeal. That decision is based on the ground that the determination of highway commissioners to vacate an existing road is not the exercise of judicial power; nor was the subject-matter of the proceeding of such character that the court might have taken jurisdiction in any other form of action. In City of Aurora v. Schoeberlein, 230 Ill. 496, 82 N. E. 860, this court had under consideration the validity of section 18 of the act of 1903 (Laws 1903, p. 99), purporting to authorize any person interested to...