State v. Chariton Drainage Dist. No. 1

Citation90 S.W. 722,192 Mo. 517
PartiesSTATE ex rel. COMPTON v. CHARITON DRAINAGE DIST. NO. 1 et al.
Decision Date22 December 1905
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Rev. St. 1899, § 8259, relating to drainage districts, was repealed by Acts 1905, p. 207, section 8263q of which provides that, where proceedings have been begun under the section repealed, they may be proceeded with under the act of 1905, provided that all liens, remedies, etc., for the collection of taxes provided for by the latter act shall so far as applicable be available for the collection of taxes levied and bonds issued under the section repealed, provided that, in all cases where districts have been incorporated under the repealed section and the work of drainage has been commenced and completed in whole or in part, no rights or obligation incurred by the district or individual shall be nullified. The old law authorized the issuance of bonds in a sum sufficient to pay for the whole improvement not exceeding $6 an acre, with the consent of the owners of not less than two-thirds of the number of acres in the district, while the latter act authorized the issuance of bonds not exceeding the amount of the tax levied by the judgment of the circuit court without the consent of property owners. Held that, where a drainage district was organized under the repealed act and the only matter incompleted when the act of 1905 took effect was the issuance of bonds payable out of the tax to be levied, the drainage corporation had the right to execute and deliver the bonds under the act repealed.

In Banc. Mandamus by the state, on the relation of William R. Compton, against the Chariton Drainage District No. 1 and others. Writ granted.

H. S. Priest, for relator. R. H. Kernf, for respondents.

MARSHALL, J.

This is an original proceeding by mandamus to compel the respondent district and the supervisors thereof to execute and deliver to the relator $65,000 in bonds of the drainage district. An alternative writ of mandamus was issued. The respondents entered their appearance, admitted the facts stated in the petition for the alternative writ, and averred that in their judgment it would be advantageous to the district to issue and deliver the bonds to the relator if they have a legal right so to do. The petition for the alternative writ alleges that the defendant district was organized, pursuant to the provisions of section 8251 et seq., Rev. St. 1899, on the 16th of May, 1904, for the purpose of reclaiming and protecting from water, by drainage or otherwise, a contiguous body of swamp or overflowed land in Macon county, Mo.; that the other respondents are the duly elected and qualified supervisors of the district; that on the 9th of June, 1904, the board of supervisors, pursuant to the provisions of section 8259, Rev. St. 1899, employed engineers to make a topographical survey of said district and a full and complete plan for reclaiming and draining the same, and also to estimate the cost of the work necessary to be done in connection therewith; that the engineers made a full report on the 9th of November, 1904, showing the work necessary to be done, and estimated the cost thereof to be $65,000, which report was unanimously approved and adopted by the board; that on the 10th of April, 1905, the board, as provided by section 8263, unanimously resolved to issue, under the terms of said section, $65,000 in bonds to procure the money necessary to do the work, and called a meeting of the owners of the land to be held on the 1st of May, 1905, to consent thereto, and that such meeting was then held and the owners of more than two-thirds of the acres of the land in the district voted to consent to ratify and approve the issuance of the bonds; that in pursuance of the provisions of the statute the board of supervisors sold said bonds to the relator at the full face value thereof, but that the board had received legal advice that the act approved April 8, 1905 (Acts 1905, p. 190), in reference to swamp and overflowed lands, repealed the law under which the proceedings aforesaid had been had, and accordingly the board declined and refused to execute and deliver the bonds to the relator; that the refusal of the supervisors was no legal justification, "for that said act of the Legislature is not retroactive and did not annul the action taken by the said supervisors, and for that section 8263q [page 207] of said act expressly reserves from the operation of said act all proceedings theretofore taken by any drainage district under the section which said act seeks to repeal."

1. The first contention of the relator is that the respondent district is a private, and not a public, corporation, and therefore the act of 1905 could not have the effect of repealing the old law under which the respondent corporation was acting. This contention is untenable. In Morrison v. Morey, 146 Mo., loc. cit. 560, 48 S. W. 629, and in Land & Stock Co. v. Miller, 170 Mo., loc. cit. 253 and 258, 70 S. W. 721, 60 L. R. A. 190, 94 Am. St. Rep. 727, a like contention was held untenable, and drainage corporations were held to be public, governmental agencies and in no sense private corporations. The conclusions then reached are emphasized both by section 8213, Rev. St. 1899, and by section 8253 of the act of 1905, both of which declare that the judgment of the circuit court shall duly declare and decree said drainage district "a public corporation of this state." Thus such corporations have been declared to be public corporations, both by this court, and by the express declaration of the acts under which they are authorized to be formed and to exist.

2. The second...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • State ex rel. Becker v. Wellston Sewer Dist., 31656.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 21, 1933
    ...v. Black, 199 Ala. 321, 330, 74 So. 387. We are not without authority in this State on the question, State ex rel. Compton v. Chariton Drainage Dist., 192 Mo. 517, 521, 90 S.W. 722, 723; State ex rel. Kinder v. Inter-River Drainage Dist., 296 Mo. 320, 329, 246 S.W. 282, 284. The latter case......
  • State ex rel. Walker v. Big Medicine Drainage Dist., 39735.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 9, 1946
    ...political subdivisions of the State under the sole control of the Legislature. State ex rel. Compton v. Chariton Drain. District No. 1, 192 Mo. 517, 90 S.W. 722; Squaw Creek Drain. District No. 1 v. Turney, 235 Mo. 80, 138 S.W. 12; Houck v. Little River Drain. District, 248 Mo. 373, 154 S.W......
  • State ex rel. Becker v. Wellston Sewer Dist. of St. Louis County
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 21, 1933
    ... ... W. Major and Jesse L. Harnage for relators ...          (1) The ... Act of 1931 is invalid because it violates Section 4, Article ... II of the Constitution ... 1; Hendrickson v ... Apperson, 245 U.S. 105, 62 L.Ed. 178; Cole v ... Drainage Dist. 270 U.S. 46, 70 L.Ed. 463; Olcott v ... Supervisors, 83 U.S. 382. (3) It is invalid ... Park, 287 Mo. 109; McGhee v. Walsh, 249 Mo ... 266; Yellow Creek Drg. Dist. of Chariton Co., 240 S.W. 203; ... State v. Julow, 129 Mo. 174; Hawkins v ... Smith, 242 Mo. 688, 147 ... ...
  • State ex rel. Walker v. Big Medicine Drainage Dist. No. 1 of Sullivan and Grundy Counties
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 9, 1946
    ... ... maintain the bridges in the drainage district over roads and ... highways, and change that burden at any time. State ex ... rel. McWilliams v. Little River Drain. District, 269 Mo ... 444, 190 S.W. 897; State ex rel. Jones v. Chariton Drain ... District, 252 Mo. 345, 158 S.W. 633; State ex rel ... Ashby v. Medicine Creek Drain. District, 284 Mo. 636, ... 224 S.W. 343. (8) Drainage districts are public corporations, ... political subdivisions of the State under the sole control of ... the Legislature. State ex rel ... ...
  • 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