Wayne City Drainage Dist. v. Boggs
Decision Date | 08 April 1914 |
Citation | 104 N.E. 676,262 Ill. 338 |
Parties | WAYNE CITY DRAINAGE DIST. v. BOGGS et al. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Wayne County Court; Virgil W. Mills, Judge.
From an order of the Wayne County Court finding that the Wayne City Drainage District was duly established as provided by law, Caroline A. Boggs and others bring writ of error. Reversed and remanded, with directions.Richard L. Boggs, James V. Heidinger, Cooper & Burgess, and Roscoe Forth, all of Fairfield, and Harry M. Miller, of Champaign, for plaintiffs in error.
Thomas H. Creighton, of Fairfield, for defendant in error.
At its July term, 1913, the county court of Wayne county entered an order finding that the Wayne city drainage district was duly established as provided by law. Numerous persons owning land within said district have sued out this writ of error to obtain a reversal of that order.
The petition was filed June 12, 1911, for the establishment of the district under the Levee Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1912, c. 42), by persons representing themselves to be a majority of the owners of lands within the proposed district who owned a major portion, in area, of the lands proposed to be benefited, A hearing was had on the petition on July 17, 1911, which resulted in a finding that the petition was signed by more than one-third of the landowners owning lands within the boundaries of the proposed district, and that the persons who signed the petition were all adults, and owned in fee more than one-half of all the lands in the district, that the work proposed was necessary and would be useful for the drainage of the lands proposed to be drained thereby, and that commissioners should be appointed. On July 24, 1911, commissionerswere appointed, who reported on April 7, 1913, setting forth a scheme of drainage radically different from that proposed by the petitioners. The order of July 17, 1911, recites the filing of objections to the granting of the prayer of the petition by certain landowners, among whom were some of the plaintiffs in error here. A number of the landowners also filed objections to the report of the commissioners, some of which attacked the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that the petition was insufficient. Subsequently motions were filed by all the objectors to dismiss the proceeding for want of jurisdiction, which motions were denied. On June 9, 1913, upon a hearing on the report of the commissioners and the objections thereto, an order was entered modifying the report in some respects, and thereafter, on July 9, 1913, the final order establishing the district was entered.
The first and principal ground urged for reversal is that the petition was insufficient to confer upon the county court jurisdiction to take any steps towards the organization of the district. It is insisted that the petition is fatally defective, because it is impossible to determine from the instrument itself the number of acres included within the proposed district and the number of acres owned by each of the petitioners, and because it fails to describe the location, route, character, extent, size, and kind of the proposed ditches with that degree of particularity which the statute requires.
[1][2] Aldridge v. Clear Creek Drainage District, 253 Ill. 251, 97 N. E. 385.
By section 2 of the Levee Act the petition is required to be signed by the requisite number of landowners the required area within the district, as therein specified, and to contain a general description of the lands proposed to be affected, and may pray for the organization of a drainage district by the name and boundaries proposed. In Drummer Creek Drainage District v. Roth, supra, it was held that the petition should be so drawn that it can be ascertained therefrom whether it is signed by owners representing the necessary proportion of individuals and acreage, and plaintiffs in error rely upon the holding in that case in support of their contention that the petition must afford such information that the exact acreage of the district and the exact acreage owned by the signers can by mere calculation be ascertained from the instrument itself. Such is not the effect of the holding in the Roth Case. In that case, as was pointed out, the boundaries of the district were not accurately given. It was impossible to ascertain the extent of the district from the information furnished in the petition. The holding there was simply to the effect that the petition must contain such information as will enable any one to ascertain with accuracy the number of acres of land and the number of owners in the proposed district. In this case there is no complaint that the boundaries of the district are not accurately stated in the petition. The basis of this objection is afforded by the fact that one side of the district is bounded by the meandering of the Skillet Fork river, and many of the tracts are described in the petition as being that part of a certain governmental subdivision lying south or west of Skillet Fork river, without giving the number of acres in the tract described. Every tract of land is described with sufficient accuracy to enable it to be located, and the number of acres accurately ascertained. From this petition the boundaries can be definitely located, and the exact acreage of the district definitely ascertained. It is not contemplated by the statute, nor is it so held in the Roth Case, supra, that the face of the petition must disclose the exact number of acres contained in the proposed district or the exact number of acres owned by the petitioners. It is only required that the petition shall furnish such data and information as to make the acreage possible of ascertainment. The court is required, upon the hearing, to take proof, either orally or by way of affidavit, based upon the information thus furnished by the petition, as to the acreage in the district, the number of owners of land lying within the district, and the proportion of the lands owned by the petitioners. This petition contained the averment that the petitioners were a majority of all the adult landowners owning lands within the proposed district, and that they owned more than one-half, in area, of all the lands in the proposed district. The court, on the hearing, heard proof, both by way of affidavit and oral testimony, as to the truth of this averment, and found that the petition was signed by more than one-third of the landowners owning land within the proposed district, that the petitioners were all adults, and that they owned more than one-half of all the lands within the proposed district. The petition was sufficient in this respect.
[3] That part of the petition which describes the location, route, and character of the proposed ditches is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The State ex inf. McAllister v. Albany Drainage District
... ... 23 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, p ... 662, b; City of East Dallas v. State ex rel. Putz, ... 73 Tex. 370; People v ... Kansas City, 48 Mo.App. 492; ... Nishnabotna Drain. Dist. v. Campbell, 154 Mo. 157 ... (c) Section 40 of the Act of 1913 fixed ... Swearingen, 273 Ill. 630; ... People v. Darst, 265 Ill. 359; Wayne Drainage ... Dist. v. Boggs, 262 Ill. 338; Tennessee Drainage ... ...
-
The State ex rel. Manion v. Dawson
...238, 254; Elsberry Drain. Dist. v. Harris, 267 Mo. 152; People v. Swearengen, 273 Ill. 630; People v. Darst, 265 Ill. 359; Wayne Drain. Dist. v. Boggs, 262 Ill. 338; Tennessee Drain. Dist. v. Moye, 258 Ill. Kinne v. Bare, 68 Mich. 625; Simpson v. Board of Supervisors, 180 Iowa 1337; George ......
-
State ex rel. McBride v. Sheetz
...court to establish a drainage district must be shown affirmatively on the record. State ex rel. v. Wilson, 216 Mo. 277; Wayne City Drainage Dist. v. Boggs, 262 Ill. 338; Railway Co. v. Young, 96 Mo. 42; State ex inf. Colbert, 273 Mo. 208. (3) Where the petition, as here, is to construct a d......
-
People ex rel. Curtin v. Heizer
...Soldier Creek Drainage (and Sanitary) District v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 323 Ill. 350, 154 N.E. 153; Wayne City Drainage District v. Boggs, 262 Ill. 338, 104 N.E. 676. If these prescribed conditions are not, in fact, met, the court has no power to confer jurisdiction on itself by ma......