Shanley v. People ex rel. Goedtner

• Decision Date: 21 February 1907
• Citation: 80 N.E. 277,225 Ill. 579
• Parties: SHANLEY et al. v. PEOPLE ex rel. GOEDTNER, Tax Collector.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

225 Ill. 579

80 N.E. 277

SHANLEY et al.

v.PEOPLE ex rel. GOEDTNER, Tax Collector.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 21, 1907.

Appeal from La Salle County Court; W. H. Hinebaugh, Judge.

Action by the people, on the relation of John Goedtner, county collector, against Mary Shanley and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Browne & Wiley, for appellants.

James J. Conway and B. F. Lincoln, for appellee.

HAND, J.

This was a proceeding in the county court of La Salle county to recover judgment and order of sale against the lands of the appellants for a special assessment levied by the commissioners of Union Drainage District No. 1 of the towns of Wallace and Waltham, in said county. The appellants appeared, and filed objections to the rendition of judgment and order of sale on the ground that their lands had not been lawfully attached to said district, which objections were stricken from the files on the motion of the appellee, and judgment and order of sale were rendered against appellants' lands, and they have prosecuted this appeal.

The said union drainage district was organized in 1898 under the farm drainage act, and, in 1905 the commissioners of said district, after having examined the lands of the appellants with the assistance of an engineer, made an order attaching the lands of the appellants to the district, under the provisions of section 42 of the farm drainage act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1905, p. 811, c. 42, § 117), on the ground that the appellants had connected the drains upon their lands with the ditches of the drainage district, and classified said lands, and levied the assessment thereon sought to be collected by this proceeding.

The main question raised in the court below, and upon this appeal, is, had the appellants the right, upon the application for judgment and order of sale against their lands to satisfy said special assessment, to make proof that they had not connected the drains upon their lands with the ditches of the drainage district, for the purpose of defeating said special assessment? We are of the opinion that questionmust be answered in the negative. Under the provisions of said section 42 the commissioners of said drainage district were given authority to determine that question, and they having held that the appellants and connected the drains upon their lands with the ditches of the drainage district, and having attached said lands to the district, classified and assessed the same, their determination that the drains upon the lands of the appellants had been connected by the appellants with the ditches of the drainage district can only to reviewed in a direct proceeding by quo warranto and cannot be reviewed in this proceeding, which proceeding is collaterial to the proceeding before the drainage commissioners, whereby said commissioners attached said lands to the said drainage district. Osborn v. People, 103 Ill. 224;Blake v. People, 109 Ill. 504;Keigwin v. Drainage Com'rs, 115 Ill. 347, 5 N. E. 575;Evans v. Lewis, 121 Ill. 478, 13 N. E. 246;Bodman v. Lake Fork Special Drainage District, 132 Ill. 439, 24 N. E. 630;People v. Jones, 137 Ill. 35, 27 N. E. 294;People v. Dyer, 205 Ill. 575, 69 N. E. 70.

In Evans v. Lewis, supra, which was a bill in equity to enjoin the collection of special assessment levied by a drainage district upon lands which were attached to a drainage district by drainage commissioners under section 42 of the farm drainage act, it was held that the action of the drainage commissioners in attaching the lands of the complainants to the drainage district was to be regarded as the organization of the district so far as those lands were concerned, and whether the drainage commissioners proceeded according to the provisions of the drainage act in all particulars in attaching said lands to the district could not be raised by bill in equity, but that such question could only be raised by quo warranto proceedings. The court, on page 482 of 121 Ill.,page 248 of 13 N. E. said: ‘If the boundaries of the district were not lawfully extended and the drainage commissioners undertake to exercise powers or franchises over or upon lands not lawfully within the bounds of the district, their right or authority to act as to these lands may be called in question by quo warranto; but a bill to enjoin the collection of the assessment is not the proper remedy.’ And in People v. Jones, supra, which was an application for judgment and order of sale to satisfy a special assessment levied by drainage commissioners upon lands attached to a drainage district under section 42 of the farm drainage act, the landowners sought to defeat the assessment by showing that their lands had been improperly attached to the district, and the trial court permitted proof to be made that the landowners had not connected their drains with the ditches of the district and refused judgment and order of sale, and on appeal to this court the judgment of the county court was reversed, and it was held that the question whether drainage commissioners have...