Soldier Creek Drainage & Sanitary Dist. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.

Decision Date10 December 1926
Docket NumberNo. 17463.,17463.
Citation154 N.E. 153,323 Ill. 350
PartiesSOLDIER CREEK DRAINAGE AND SANITARY DIST. v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Proceeding for the organization of Soldier Creek Drainage and Sanitary District, under the Levee Act. The Illinios Central Railroad Company and others objected to the report of the commissioners, and from an order confirming the report of the commissioners, and organizing the drainage district, the objectors appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

Appeal from County Court, Kankakee County; Henry F. Ruel, judge.

Hunter & Minor and John H. Beckers, all of Kankakee, for appellants.

Luther B. Bratton, of Kankakee, for appellee.

FARMER, J.

This was a proceeding in the county court of Kankakee county for the organization of Soldier Creek drainage and sanitary district under the Levee Act. The petition for the organization of the proposed district was circulated prior to April 7, 1923, and was signed by 307 persons, who purported to be one-third of the adult owners of land within the proposed district and who represented a major portion, in area, of the lands sought to be benefited. The petition described the boundaries of the proposed district, the watershed, proposed starting point, route and termini, contained a description of the main sewer, open ditch, and Grinnell branch, and set forth the necessity for the improvement. It also contained paragraphs setting forth the employment of a certain engineer and an attorney, and provided that the petitioners would pay all costs, expenses, and fees, in the event the district should be dissolved. The attorney named therein was authorized to amend the petition or any other paper relative to or connected with the proceeding, at any time he deemed the same necessary for the successful and legal organization of the proposed district. A general description of the lands to be affected, with the names of the owners, was attached to the petition. It was filed in the county court on April 7, 1923. Notice of hearingon the petition was given, and on May 7, 1923, the court entered an order finding the essential facts required by the statute and appointed commissioners. The cause was continued to a day certain for the filing of the report of the commissioners and thereafter continued from time to time. Before the commissioners' report was filed, the petitioners on July 11, 1923, moved the court to dismiss the petition and asked for leave to withdraw all files and exhibits, which motion was allowed by the court and the petition dismissed. On the next day the same petition was refiled in the county court of Kankakee county. It appears from a stipulation in the record that when the petition was refiled on July 12, 1923, the proposed district contained 1,151.99 acres; that there were 594.246 acres of land in the district, the owners of which had not signed the petition; and that within the proposed boundaries of the district were 206.46 acres which were already within and a part of Grinnell special drainage district. The proposed district includedcertain lots, streets, and alleys, over 20 acres of public parks located in the city of Kankakee, and certain other acreage near the city, all of which were capable of being drained by the proposed improvement.

A hearing was had August 6, 1923, on the petition after due notice had been given, and an order was entered by the court on that date finding the court had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter; that the petitioners constituted one-third of the adult owners of land within the district, who represented a major portion, in area, of the lands to be reclaimed, and other essential facts required by the statute. Commissioners were appointed, who later filed their report. The four railroad companies who are appellants here filed objections to the report of the commissioners, which report was thereafter amended by eliminating a portion of the contemplated improvement to be done outside the district and reducing the estimated cost from $500,000 to $430,000. The objections were overruled, and on September 21, 1923, the court entered an order confirming the commissioners' amended report and organizing the district. It is stated by appellants and not denied by appellee that the commissioners filed their assessment roll, during August, 1924, and, after notice given, the same was set for hearing. Appellants made a motion to strike the roll from the files because the court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter, but, so far as appears, the motion was not acted upon by the court.

On November 28, 1924, the county court of its own motion entered an order finding the court was without jurisdiction in making its previous order of organization of Soldier Creek drainage and sanitary district, that such order was void, and the same was vacated and set aside. On the same date the petitioners' attorney and the commissioners moved the court to withdraw the report of the commissioners and the exhibits filed with it, to set aside the order of August 6, 1923, appointing the commissioners of the district, and for leave to amend the petition on file, which petition, when amended, should be known as the amended petition, and that when filed and presented the same be set down for hearing, and that notice be given as required in the case of an original petition. This motion was allowed by the court. The record does not show the reason or ground upon which the court based its order vacating the organization of the district, though it is stated in the brief of appellee that the reason therefor was that certain lands were included within the proposed district which were already within and a part of Grinnell special drainage district.

On December 8, 1924, the petitioners filed an amendment to the petition, changing the boundaries, the proposed starting point, routes and termini, the lands to be affected, and reducing the acreage embraced in the proposed district from 1,151.99 acres to 965.75 acres. The amendment to the petition, as presented at this time, was not signed by any personor attorney. Upon the filing of the amendment to the petition, it was ordered by the court that the original petition, together with the amendment thereto, be thereafter treated as one petition, and that the amended petition be set for hearing and notice thereof given, as provided by section 3 of the Drainage Act (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1925, c. 42). Due notice was given, and appellants, together with additional owners of property affected by the improvement, filed various objections to the amended petition, by some of which the jurisdiction of the court was challenged for the reason that no valid petition was on file in the cause. It appears that several hearings were had upon the amended petition and the objections thereto, evidence was introduced, and arguments presented to the court, but, before the court passed upon any of the questions presented, petitioners again moved the court for leave to amend their petition by changing the boundaries, thereby reducing the acreage in the proposed district from 965.75 to 745.78 acres. To this amendment appellants objected, but the objections, together with all previous objections filed, were overruled and the amendment allowed to be filed on April 8, 1925. Thereupon appellants filed additional objections, again raising the question that the court was without jurisdiction and that there was no valid petition on file.

It appears that several hearings were had thereafter, and a stipulation containing some of the facts involved in the case was entered into July 30, 1925, and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • People ex rel. Greening v. Bartholf
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • November 22, 1944
    ...at the same time for the same purpose. People ex rel. Bancroft v. Lease, 248 Ill. 187, 93 N.E. 783;Soldier Creek Drainage Dist. v. Illinois Central R. Co., 323 Ill. 350, 154 N.E. 153;People ex rel. Goldsbery v. Zoller, 337 Ill. 362, 169 N.E. 228. It was held that a petition for organization......
  • Disconnection of Certain Territory from Village of Machesney Park, In re
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 22, 1984
    ...7-3-2. Relying upon People ex rel. Hoyne v. Stumpf (1916), 275 Ill. 81, 113 N.E. 994, and Soldier Creek Drainage and Sanitary District v. Illinois Central R.R. Co. (1926), 323 Ill. 350, 154 N.E. 153, the Village next contends that there was no jurisdiction because the original petition was ......
  • People v. Heizer
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 13, 1966
    ...for want of proper notice. The court in deciding what it did not have to, relied upon Soldier Creek Drainage and Sanitary District v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 323 Ill. 350, 154 N.E. 153, which is also cited in People ex rel. Fitton v. Ehler. 338 Ill. 67, 170 N.E. 1. An examination of ......
  • King v. North Fork Outlet Drainage Dist.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • June 23, 1928
    ...253 Ill. 251, 97 N. E. 385;Maulding v. Skillet Fork Drainage District, 313 Ill. 216, 145 N. E. 227;Soldier Creek Drainage District v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 323 Ill. 350,154 N. W. 153. [17][18][19][20] In a proceeding in the nature of quo warranto to test the validity of the organiz......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT