Sny Island Levee Drainage Dist. v. Meyer
| Decision Date | 22 March 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 37032,37032 |
| Citation | 27 Ill.2d 530,190 N.E.2d 356 |
| Parties | SNY ISLAND LEVEE DRAINAGE DISTRICT, Appellee, v. Dorothy MEYER et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Schimmel & Schimmel, Pittsfield, for appellants.
Grigsby & Irving, Pittsfield, and Dobbins & Fraker, Champaign, for appellee.
This is a proceeding to assess benefits and annual benefits against owners of approximately 100,000 acres of land within the Sny Island Levee Drainage District, and to condemn approximately 10,000 additional acres in the district for drainage rights of way. Thirty-eight sets of landowners filed objections to assessments levied against their lands and twelve sets of landowners objected to the compensation fixed for their lands taken and the damages allowed for lands not taken. The jury heard the assessment evidence, viewed the lands and rendered its verdicts, and the verdicts were confirmed by the trial court. Thereafter the twelve condemnation cases were heard by the jury. The premises were viewed, verdicts rendered, and the trial court entered an order confirming the awards. Identical post-trial motions filed in the assessment and condemnaiton cases were denied and the defendants appeal to this court by virtue of the provisions of the Illinois Drainage Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, chap. 42, par. 12-16), and the Eminent Domain Act. Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, chap. 47, par. 12.
The District was organized in 1880. It is about 50 miles long extending from Adams County southerly through Pike County into Calsoun County and is bounded on the east by the river bluffs and on the west by a levee along the Mississippi river. The District slopes gradually from north to south and is bisected over its entire length by Sny Channel which empties into the Mississippi. There is no levee at the south end so that in times of high water it backs up the Sny into the District.
Between 1937 and 1941 the Federal government constructed navigation dams at Winfield, Clarksville, and Sauerton, Missouri, to maintain a nine-foot navigation channel in the river. These caused the water level to rise upstream and excess seepage in the drainage district resulted. Congress authorized the Corp of Engineers to design an interior project and another to improve the Main Stem River Levee. The government has estimated that it will spend $26,500,000 on the two projects. The Levee District is to acquire rights of way, relocate power and telephone lines and roads, and build drainage structures. The plans include raising the Main Stem River Levee three feet, placing a levee across the south end of the District to prevent water backing into the district, relocating creeks to empty directly into the river, installing pumps and making many internal changes. The District's share of the cost is estimated at $3,422,000.
Lands in the District were divided into about 4500 tracts owned by approximately 550 owners, and in levying the assessment the commissioners took into consideration the benefits to accrue from the whole project. The District was divided into 18 classes, each class consisting of an area with an average elevation one foot lower than its adjacent area to the north. The assessments increased in each area starting at the north and proceeding south since the elevation of the Sny lowers as it proceeds south. Certain physical characteristics in the areas were also taken into consideration, such as seepage, sandy soil, elimination of creek hazards and impounding of water near pump sites. The maximum assessments, before adjustment, progressed from $35.22 per acre in the northernmost area to $50.22 in the southernmost. In each instance the minimum assessment was fixed at $15.22 per acre. The court fixed $150,000 for annual maintenance and the assessment as spread ranged from $1.00 to $1.70 per acre in proportion to the benefits from the project.
We note that defendants have failed to argue 8 of their 19 points and 4 of their 17 so-called 'assignment(s) of error'. Such points are deemed waived and will not be considered under our Rule 39. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, chap. 110, par. 101.39.) Defendants raise some general points relative to the assessment portion of the proceedings which will be considered prior to taking up their specific objections to the assessments on particular tracts.
It is charged that the engineer for the District was permitted to testify that the District would benefit by the government's contribution of $26,500,00 toward the project to the prejudice of the defendants. We find some difficulty in following defendants' argument. Apparently it is based upon the rule set out in Little Beaver Special Drainage District v. Livingston, 270 Ill. 582, 110 N.E. 806, that an expert witness may not testify that the district as a whole would be benefited as much or more than the entire assessment. The same proposition is stated in slightly different ways four times under their points and authorities with the single citation of the Little Beaver Special Drainage District case each time. The rule is correctly stated but has no application here. There was no testimony by the engineer, or any other witness, as to the extent of the Federal contribution. An objection was made when a question was asked on redirect examination as to one phase of the project which was to be constructed by the government. After overruling the objection a further colloquy took place, most of it in chambers, the court reconsidered, and the witness did not testify on this subject. Defendants opened this line of questioning on cross-examination and should not conplain. Furthermore, the extent of the government's participation was included in the court's earlier order authorizing the improvements to be made and the assessment levied, which order went to the jury at the behest of defendants.
Defendants' complaint that while there is a crop surplus and the government is spending money to reduce and control crops, money is being here spent to produce more crops, may find many receptive ears. But we fail to see how this seeming paradox has any vitality in this proceeding.
Objection is made that the trial court refused to grant defendants' motion to withdraw a juror and declare a mistrial on the ground that the jurors were receiving information concerning the controversy through newspaper media. This error, if such it be, cannot now be raised since the point was not raised in the post-trial motion as required by statute. Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, chap. 110, par. 68.1(2).
We proceed to objections to particular assessments. The Fineup-Biest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hopkinson v. Chicago Transit Authority
...on cross-examination, thereby permitting plaintiff to clarify further on redirect examination. See Sny Island Levee Drainage Dist. v. Meyer (1963), 27 Ill.2d 530, 190 N.E.2d 356. Furthermore, the error, if any, does not materially affect the outcome of the trial, and thus does not require r......
-
Brown v. Decatur Memorial Hospital
... ... In Sny Island Levee Drainage District v. Meyer (1963), 27 Ill.2d 530, ... ...
-
Department of Public Works & Buildings v. Klehm
...mistake.' See also Department of Public Works and Buildings v. Lotta, 27 Ill.2d 455, 189 N.E.2d 238; Sny Island Levee Drainage Dist. v. Meyer, 27 Ill.2d 530, 190 N.E.2d 356, and cases there For the reasons given, the judgment of the appellate court is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. ...
-
Cavazos v. E. W. Bliss Co.
...adequately preserved her objection. (See Barrett, 42 Ill.2d 529, 533, 248 N.E.2d 111.) We find Sny Island Levee Drainage District v. Meyer (1963), 27 Ill.2d 530, 537-38, 190 N.E.2d 356, cited and relied upon by defendant, distinguishable. In that case it does not appear that defendants rais......