Watts v. Levee Dist. No. 1

• Decision Date: 05 March 1912
• Parties: WATTS v. LEVEE DIST. NO. 1, MISSISSIPPI COUNTY, MO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

145 S.W. 129

WATTS v. LEVEE DIST. NO. 1, MISSISSIPPI COUNTY, MO.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

March 5, 1912.

1. LEVEES (§ 5)—LEVEE DISTRICTS—STATUS.

A levee district is a public corporation, and its directors are quasi public officers.

2. LEVEES (§ 33) — UNAUTHORIZED WARRANTS—RATIFICATION.

In an action on warrants issued by a levee district to pay for a levee, the proceedings for the construction of which had been held invalid by the Supreme Court, because authorized at a meeting of a part only of the landowners of the district, evidence held not to show a ratification of the issuance of such warrants by the authorization, at a meeting of the landowners of the entire district, of the construction of a new levee and the repair of the one in question.

3. EVIDENCE (§ 387) — PAROL EVIDENCE— CORPORATION PROCEEDINGS.

Where the minutes of a meeting of the landowners of a levee district contained an entry that one of the directors explained the object and purpose of the meeting, parol evidence was admissible to show the nature of that explanation; the minutes being incomplete on their face, and the parol testimony supporting, instead of contradicting, them.

4. JUDGMENT (§ 715)—CONCLUSIVENESS.

In a suit by the county collector to enforce a levee assessment, it was held that the assessment was invalid, because the levee was not authorized at a meeting of the landowners of the whole district, and the cost assessed on all the land of the district. Held, that such decision was conclusive in an action on warrants issued to the contractors, to pay which the assessment was made.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mississippi County; Henry C. Riley, Judge.

Action by J. Sam Watts against Levee District No. 1, Mississippi County, Mo. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This is an action to enforce payment of 16 warrants in the following form:

Office of Levee District Number One. Charleston, Mo.

To the Treasurer of Mississippi County.

Pay out of any money in the treasury belonging to said Levee District, to A. C. Harris ____ dollars, with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent. per annum, from date of presentation to you for payment until sufficient funds of said district are in the treasury to pay the same.

Done by order of the Board of Directors this ____ day of ____, 189_.

                W. T. Marshall,         Thomas Beckwith
                   Secretary.                     President
                

The first of the warrants bears date of issue December 15, 1894, the last March 2, 1895. They run in amount from $6.70, the smallest, to $100, the largest. They were all protested on presentation to the treasurer of the county for payment, on the ground that there was no money on hand belonging to defendant, the protests being dated from December 17, 1894, to March 4, 1895. They aggregate $743.37, principal, and were all assigned by Harris to plaintiff, who demands judgment on each of them.

The answer, after a general denial, set up the notices and proceedings connected with the issue of these warrants, it being admitted that they were all issued in pursuance of a resolution passed at a meeting of part of the landowners in Levee District No. 1, held at Birds Mill November 28, 1893. It was further set up in the answer that these warrants were all issued without authority of law and without authority of defendant, and in pretended payment of certain work not authorized by this defendant; that they were issued under pretended authority of the above named meeting, all the proceedings of which meeting, it is averred, were adjudged illegal and void by the Supreme Court of this state in the case of State ex rel. F. M. Stotts v. Alice and B. J. Wall, a suit brought to collect the tax authorized by that meeting for the payment of the warrants in suit and others of like character, the case referred to being reported 153 Mo. 216, 54 S W. 465, decided December 22, 1899. Wherefore plaintiff charges that these instruments are void and constitute no charge against defendant.

The reply, or replication, as it is incorrectly called, after denying all the allegations in the answer, sets out the proceedings leading up to the organization of the levee district, which were had on August 6, 1892, and avers that in pursuance of apparent authority given to them by the landowners of the district prior to May 17, 1900, the board of directors had constructed about 17 miles of levee and issued warrants aggregating $62,115, in payment for that work, these warrants including those sued on, and had caused a tax to be levied upon the lands in the district for the purpose of paying the warrants, and had paid, after the issue of the warrants, about $40,000 thereof. It is further set up in the reply that on December 8, 1899, after the decision in the Stotts-Wall Case, above referred to, by the Supreme Court, and with full knowledge of the contents of that decision, the board of directors of the levee district had met and, as provided by law, determined and ordered that the levee should be built around and along the river front of the levee district from the New Madrid county line in the Mississippi River northward along the river to the north end of the levee district extending along the north end of Big Lake to the "Still House," including the 17 miles of levee theretofore built, and for the payment of which the warrants sued on were issued; that at that meeting the board had ordered "that accurate surveys, maps and profiles of said levee to be constructed, and repairs to be made," be furnished and that estimates and calculations of the cost of that work be made showing the amount, character and kind of work to be done, the exact location and probable cost thereof, and appointed a competent civil engineer to do the work; that afterwards, on May 7, 1900, the board of directors of the levee district met and by resolution ordered the assessment of a tax on all lands within the levee district to be benefited, "for the purpose of defraying the expenses of surveys, and estimates of levees or other work and the cost thereof, maintain the same and pay such officers, agents, servants and employés as are allowed compensation by law," the board also ordering that a certified copy of the resolution be transmitted to the clerk of the county court of the county; that in accordance with this resolution the tax so levied was extended on the tax books of the county on the real estate to be benefited by the proposed work, and had been so extended and collected from year to year as other taxes; that the county assessor filed the assessment books of the district with the clerk of the county court and a copy thereof with the president of the board of directors of the district, that the civil engineer filed his report and estimates with the board of directors of the district; that afterwards the board of directors called a meeting of the landowners in the district, to be held June 21, 1900, at a place designated on the line of the proposed levee work, and caused notice of the meeting to be published and posted as required by law; that pursuant to that resolution and notice a meeting of the landowners in the district was held at the place and on the date designated, at which meeting the report, specifications, surveys, maps, profiles and estimates as made by the engineer, "which included the 17 miles of levee theretofore built for the payment of which the warrants herein sued on were issued, was submitted, together with the assessment as returned by the county assessor to the meeting of said landowners for their ratification or rejection, and that at said meeting it was then and there determined by a majority of the landowners of the district present to do the work according to the report, specifications, surveys and profiles submitted by the engineer of said district." It is further averred that since that meeting of July 21, 1900, the board of directors of the district has expended large sums of money in building levee and repairing and strengthening the 17 miles of levee which had been built "and is exercising ownership and control of all levee built and paid for with the warrants herein sued on." It is further averred in the reply that all the acts and proceedings of the board of directors and landowners of the district were done and had with full knowledge that a large amount of levee had been constructed and that warrants issued in payment for this work were outstanding and unpaid; that all work for which the warrants had been issued was done in good faith by the several contractors and the warrants were issued by the board of directors and received by the contractors in good faith, and that the defendant district has received and is yet receiving great benefits from the work for the payment of which the warrants were issued, wherefore it is averred that by reason of the premises the defendant levee district has fully ratified and confirmed the action of the board of directors in issuing the warrants and is now estopped by reason of the premises aforesaid to deny the validity of the warrants.

The trial was before the court, a jury having been waived. It was admitted that the district was legally organized; that the warrants sued on were issued by order of the board of directors of the defendant district and were signed by the proper officers of the district; that plaintiff is the owner of the warrants; that they were due (had matured) and were unpaid at the time the suit was filed; that they were issued in part payment of work and labor performed in the construction of about 17 miles of levee, as alleged in the reply; that they were all presented to the county treasurer of the county and protested by him on the several dates mentioned. One of the warrants for $100 was introduced as a sample of all the warrants save as to the amount, date, number and date of protest. These facts were agreed to as constituting plaintiff's evidence in chief.

It was also agreed that...