Schafroth v. Buena Vista County

• Decision Date: 11 December 1917
• Docket Number: 31579
• Citation: 165 N.W. 341,181 Iowa 1223
• Parties: HENRY SCHAFROTH, Appellant, v. BUENA VISTA COUNTY et al., Appellees
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

165 N.W. 341

181 Iowa 1223

HENRY SCHAFROTH, Appellant, v. BUENA VISTA COUNTY et al., Appellees

No. 31579

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

December 11, 1917

Appeal from Buena Vista District Court.--D. F. COYLE, Judge.

APPEAL from the establishment of a drainage district. The facts are fully stated in the opinion.

Affirmed.

James De Land, for appellant.

Faville & Whitney and Guy E. Mack, for appellees.

STEVENS J. GAYNOR, C. J., WEAVER and PRESTON, JJ., concur.

OPINION

STEVENS, J.

I.

Plaintiff is the owner of the south one half of Section 34, Township 90, Range 36, Buena Vista County, Iowa. On April 28, 1915, a petition was filed in the office of the county auditor of Buena Vista County, praying the establishment of a drainage district, which was, on the 16th day of August, 1915 established by the board of supervisors. Appellant, in due time, filed objections to the establishment, and, upon hearing, same were rejected, and the improvement established in accordance with the recommendations of the engineer. From this order, plaintiff appealed to the district court, and from its order and judgment sustaining the finding of the board of supervisors, to this court.

But two questions are presented upon this appeal, and what is said herein is confined wholly to a consideration thereof. Appellees contend: (1) That the report and plat of the engineer appointed by the board of supervisors to examine and report on the feasibility of the proposed improvement are so inadequate and incomplete that the board was not sufficiently advised thereby of the matters required by statute to be shown by the engineer in his report, of the nature, extent and character of the proposed improvement recommended by him; and (2) that the lands of appellant included within the boundaries of said district will not be improved or benefited in any way thereby.

The engineer in his report refers to a profile and plat, but we do not have the profile before us. A blue print of the map or plat accompanies appellant's abstract, and shows the boundaries of the district, the location of the proposed tile drainage to be constructed, the swamp and other overflowed lands, and other data necessary to an intelligent understanding of the condition of the lands sought to be improved. The report of the engineer, which is set out in full, shows the starting point, route, terminus and location of each drain, with numerous elevations, ponds and depressions included within the district. While other information might have been incorporated therein that would have been helpful to the board of supervisors in passing upon the feasibility of the proposed improvement, we think the plat and report of the engineer sufficiently comply with the statute, and that the board of supervisors had jurisdiction to act upon the petition and recommendation of the engineer.

II. The principal contention of appellant, however, is that he has already installed on his premises a complete system of tile drainage which effectually drains the same; that his land is higher than the surrounding land and is not subject to overflow from surface waters; and that same will be in no wise specially benefited by the proposed improvement. It appears to be conceded that appellant has placed approximately 27,000 tile on his land, that same is well drained thereby, that no part thereof is swamp, and that the water accumulating thereon will be more rapidly carried away by the proposed system of drainage than at present; and it is claimed that, by connecting the tile drainage which it is proposed to construct with that of appellant, the fall at the outlet and the outlet for his tiling will be improved and rendered less likely to become obstructed, and the water gotten away underground more rapidly, and that appella...