State v. Wall
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | Valliant |
| Citation | 153 Mo. 216,54 S.W. 465 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. STOTTS, County Collector, v. WALL et al. |
| Decision Date | 14 November 1899 |
v.
WALL et al.
LEVEES — ASSESSMENT.
Under Rev. St. 1889, c. 101, § 6669, authorizing the county court to organize levee districts, embracing as nearly as possible in one district all lands subject to overflow from a common point of danger; and section 6679, requiring the court, after organization of a district, to assess the value of all lands in said levee district subject to overflow, and to be benefited by said work; and section 6681, requiring that as soon as the assessment books are filed the board of directors shall call a meeting "of the landowners of said levee district," at which shall be submitted plans, and "an estimate of the probable cost of said work, and the probable rate per centum thereof on the valuation of said lands," and that at such meeting there shall be submitted the proposition of building a levee, and authorizing the necessary assessment on the lands of the district to pay for it, — authority to build a levee and lay an assessment therefor can be given only in a meeting to which all the landowners of the district are called, and the assessment must cover all the lands thereof.
Appeal from circuit court, Mississippi county; H. C. Riley, Judge.
Suit, on the relation of F. M. Stotts, county collector, against Alice Wall and another. From an adverse judgment, defendants appeal. Reversed.
Marshall Arnold and Wilson Cramer, for appellants. Boone & Lee, Russell & Deal, and W. H. Miller, for respondent.
VALLIANT, J.
This is a suit, at the relation of the collector of Mississippi county, to recover certain assessments imposed on lands of the appellants for levee purposes. The petition stated a case of a levee district duly formed, embracing defendants' lands, an assessment therein made for levee construction according to the provisions of chapter 101, Rev. St. 1889, default in payment by defendants, and prayed judgment. The answer was a general denial. The proof showed that at the August term, 1892, of the county court of Mississippi county, upon petition and notice as required by law, that court duly organized a levee district, designated as "District No. 1," embracing within its area about three-fourths of the county. At the same time three directors were appointed by the court, who duly qualified, and the board was organized as the statute requires. At the May term, 1893, a majority of the board of directors presented a petition to the county court, representing that, after due consideration, they had agreed to build a levee on a certain line therein designated, subject to the approval of a majority of the landowners within a certain part of the district; specifying by metes and bounds an area of about one-third of district No. 1, embracing the lands of defendants; stating that, in the opinion of the petitioners, the lands so designated would be greatly benefited by a levee to be built as they proposed; and praying that the assessor be directed by the court to assess the value of the lands included in that boundary, as required by sections 6679-6681, Rev. St. 1889. The court made the order as the petition requested, and the assessor obeyed, embracing in his assessment for this purpose only the land covered by the order. On 27th October, 1893, the directors caused notice to be published that a meeting of the landowners of levee district No. 1, within those boundaries, would be held at a certain time and place named, to consider the proposition of building the levee as indicated. This notice was in all respects as required by section 6681, except that it was not a call for a meeting of all the landowners in the district, but only of those owning land within the boundaries specified. Pursuant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mound City Land & Stock Co. v. Miller
...72 Am. Dec. 276; Levee Co. v. Meier, 39 Mo. 53; Morrison v. Morey, 146 Mo. 543, 48 S. W. 629; and State v. Wall, 153 Mo., loc. cit. 220, 54 S. W. 465. Irrigation laws have been attacked upon much the same grounds, but their constitutionality has been upheld. Irrigation Dist. v. Williams, 76......
-
State ex Inf. Ellis v. Ferguson, No. 32395.
...Drainage District, 192 Mo. 517; Wilson v. King's Lake Drainage & Levee Dist., 237 Mo. 39, 139 S.W. 136; State ex rel. Stotts v. Wall, 153 Mo. 216; Carder v. Drainage Dist., 262 Mo. 556; Birmingham Drainage Dist. v. Railroad Co., 202 S.W. 407. It will also be noted that the language used......
-
Crow Creek Irr. Dist. v. Crittenden, No. 5433.
...S. W. 629;Squaw Creek Drainage District v. Turney, 235 Mo. 80, 138 S. W. 12); and likewise a levee district (State ex rel. Stotts v. Wall, 153 Mo. 216, 54 S. W. 465;Land & Stock Co. v. Miller, 170 Mo. 240, 70 S. W. 721, 60 L. R. A. 190, 94 Am. St. Rep. 727). But it is also held that nei......
-
State v. Three States Lumber Co.
...thought would be benefited by the levee or a system of levees, which did not exist at the time the assessment was made. Stotts v. Wall, 153 Mo. 216, 54 S. W. 465, is relied upon as sustaining this contention, but in our opinion it does not do so. The assessment in the case at bar embraced a......
-
Mound City Land & Stock Co. v. Miller
...72 Am. Dec. 276; Levee Co. v. Meier, 39 Mo. 53; Morrison v. Morey, 146 Mo. 543, 48 S. W. 629; and State v. Wall, 153 Mo., loc. cit. 220, 54 S. W. 465. Irrigation laws have been attacked upon much the same grounds, but their constitutionality has been upheld. Irrigation Dist. v. Williams, 76......
-
State ex Inf. Ellis v. Ferguson, No. 32395.
...Drainage District, 192 Mo. 517; Wilson v. King's Lake Drainage & Levee Dist., 237 Mo. 39, 139 S.W. 136; State ex rel. Stotts v. Wall, 153 Mo. 216; Carder v. Drainage Dist., 262 Mo. 556; Birmingham Drainage Dist. v. Railroad Co., 202 S.W. 407. It will also be noted that the language used......
-
Crow Creek Irr. Dist. v. Crittenden, No. 5433.
...S. W. 629;Squaw Creek Drainage District v. Turney, 235 Mo. 80, 138 S. W. 12); and likewise a levee district (State ex rel. Stotts v. Wall, 153 Mo. 216, 54 S. W. 465;Land & Stock Co. v. Miller, 170 Mo. 240, 70 S. W. 721, 60 L. R. A. 190, 94 Am. St. Rep. 727). But it is also held that nei......
-
State v. Three States Lumber Co.
...thought would be benefited by the levee or a system of levees, which did not exist at the time the assessment was made. Stotts v. Wall, 153 Mo. 216, 54 S. W. 465, is relied upon as sustaining this contention, but in our opinion it does not do so. The assessment in the case at bar embraced a......