Wilson v. King's Lake Drainage And Levee District

Citation158 S.W. 931,176 Mo.App. 470
PartiesTHOMAS C. WILSON, Administrator, Appellant, v. KING'S LAKE DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT, Respondent
Decision Date05 July 1913
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

Appeal from Lincoln Circuit Court.--Hon. James D. Barnett, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED. CAUSE CERTIFIED TO SUPREME COURT.

F. L Schofield and E. B. Woolfolk for appellant.

O. H Avery and Wm. A. Dudley for respondents.

NORTONI J. Allen, J., concurs. Reynolds, P. J., dissents.

OPINION

NORTONI, J.

This is a suit in equity and the question for decision arises alone on the face of the bill. Defendant interposed a demurrer to plaintiff's bill and the court sustained it. From this judgment so sustaining the demurrer, plaintiff prosecutes the appeal here. Omitting caption and signatures, the bill is as follows, however the italics employed therein are our own:

"Plaintiff states that at all the times hereinafter mentioned the defendant was and yet is a body corporate duly incorporated as a drainage district under and by virtue of article five of chapter one hundred and twenty-two of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1899, and by virtue of the proceedings in the county court of Lincoln county, Missouri, in a certain cause therein pending entitled--'In the Matter of King's Lake Drainage and Levee District,' and by virtue of the certain findings, orders and judgments of said court in said cause duly made and entered of record therein on the 25th day of May, 1895, and on the 29th day of November, 1904.

"Plaintiff further states that the lands embraced and included within and affected by said drainage district lie partly in Lincoln county and partly in Pike county, both in the State of Missouri, and that the greater part of said lands lie in the said county of Lincoln.

"That heretofore, to-wit, on the day of , 1894, there was filed in the office of the clerk of the county court of said Lincoln county a petition duly signed by the majority of the owners of all the lands in said above mentioned district and by the owners of more than half of said lands, all of said petitioners and owners being adults of lawful age, praying and applying for the organization of a drainage district embracing said lands by the said name of 'King's Lake Drainage and Levee District,' and with the boundaries thereof proposed, setting forth said proposed name and the necessity for said district and the organization thereof, and for the construction therein and thereby of drains, ditches levees and other works, and the maintenance and keeping same in repair, with a description of its and their proposed starting point, route and termini, and a general description of the said lands, proposed to be affected thereby, with the names of the owners of all said lands, and praying and applying for the appointment of commissioners for the execution of such proposed work according to the provisions of the act aforesaid; and which said petition was accompanied by an affidavit giving the names and places of residence of such of the owners of said lands within said district as were nonresidents of said counties of Lincoln and Pike so far as known, and so far as unknown stating that upon diligent inquiry their places of residence could not be ascertained.

"That thereupon the clerk of said county court of Lincoln county duly docketed said matter and cause on the docket and record of his said court for further proceedings therein under and by the name and title, 'In the matter of the King's Lake Drainage and Levee District,' and that all the proceedings in said court hereinafter referred to were had and done in said matter and cause and under the name and title aforesaid, and that he caused due notice of the presentation and filing of said petition to be given in all the modes and within the time provided by law to all the owners of said lands and all others interested therein; which said notices contained a statement that said petition had been filed in said court, the date when same was filed, the starting point, route, termini and general description of the said proposed work, the boundaries of said proposed drainage district and the said name thereof, and that the petitioners would ask a hearing of said petition at the July term of said county court then next to be holden at the courthouse in the city of Troy in said county.

"That thereafterwards such proceedings were duly had in said county court, that, on to-wit, the 17th day of August, 1894, at and during a term and sitting of said court duly held in the courthouse in said city of Troy, the hearing of and upon said petition was duly had by and before court, and the said court, after hearing all competent evidence offered before it for and against said petition and the various matters involved in said proceeding, duly found and adjudged that said petition had been signed by a majority of the owners of all the lands in said district and by the owners of a majority of all said lands; and it further then and there appearing to the said court that the said proposed drains, ditches, levees and other works were necessary and would be useful for the drainage of the said lands proposed to be drained thereby for agricultural and sanitary purposes, the said court then and there duly so found, declared, ordered and adjudged; and thereupon by its further order and judgment in said proceeding said court appointed William J. Seaman and William H. Baskett of Lincoln county and Frank L. Wilson of Pike county as commissioners to lay out and construct said proposed works.

"That thereafterwards the said commissioners after having been duly qualified and having entered into bond according to law, duly conditioned, filed and approved, entered upon the duties of their said office and at their first meeting after their appointment and qualification duly appointed one of their number, viz., the said William H. Baskett, as secretary.

"That thereafterwards and within the time as directed by said court the said commissioners went upon and duly examined the lands described in said petition proposed to be drained and protected and the lands over and upon which the said work was proposed to be constructed, and thereupon determined and reported to the said court by their written report duly made and filed therein on the 6th day of March, 1895, as follows: First, that the starting point, route and termini of said proposed work and the proposed location thereof were in all respects proper and feasible. Second, the probable cost of the said proposed work, including all incidental expenses and the costs of the proceedings therefor. Third, the probable cost of keeping the same in repair after the work should be completed. Fourth, what lands, with a particular description thereof, would be injured by said work and the aggregate amount of such injuries, and awarding to each tract, lot, easement or interest, the amount of damages so determined by them. Fifth, what lands, with a particular description thereof, would be benefited by the construction of the said proposed work, and showing that the benefits exceeded the aggregate cost of constructing said work, including all incidental expenses, costs of proceeding and damages; and therein apportioned and assessed the estimated cost of the same on the said lands so benefited, setting down opposite to the correct description of each tract, lot, easement, interest of servitude, the proportion of such costs assessed as benefits thereon. Sixth, that the proposed district as set out in the said petition filed would not embrace all the lands that might be damaged or benefited by the proposed work, and setting forth and reporting what additional lands and a particular description thereof would be benefited or damaged and the amount of benefits and the amount of damages to each said tract of additional land, in the same manner as though such additional lands had been included in the said original petition. And the said commissioners reporting in their said report that the whole cost of such said proposed work would be less than the benefits resulting therefrom, they located, designed, laid out and planned same in the manner as to them seemed best designed to drain and protect the lands of all the parties interested with the least damage and greatest benefit to all the lands to be affected thereby, and had proper surveys, profiles, plans and specifications made for such proposed work and reported to the said court in their said report their conclusions thereon, with a copy of said surveys, pro files, plans and specifications and their recommendations as to the best and cheapest method of doing the said proposed work.

"That upon the filing of said report by said commissioners, the said county court, to-wit, on the 4th day of April, 1895, duly made and entered of record therein an order fixing the 16th day of May, 1895, as the time, and the courthouse in the city of Troy as the place, when and where all persons interested in said report or in the work referred to therein, might appear and contest the confirmation thereof. That thereupon the clerk of said court caused due notice of the said time and place of said hearing and of the amount of benefits and damages assessed and awarded by the said report of the said commissioners and containing a description of the lands affected, by publication thereof for three successive weeks prior to said day so set for such hearing in the 'Lincoln County News,' a newspaper published in said county, and also by duly serving a copy of such notice on each of the persons and corporations affected thereby who reside in either Lincoln or Pike county aforesaid, at least twenty days before the said day so fixed for said hearing.

"That thereupon such proceedings were duly had in and before...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Donovan v. Kansas City
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 3 Marzo 1944
    ......Ry. Co., 242 Mo. 339,. 147 S.W. 118; Lake View v. Rose Hill Cemetery Co., . 70 Ill. 191; ...287; Lee v. Howe, 27 Mo. 521; Wilson v. Drain. District, . 257 Mo. 266, 165 S.W. 734, ...King's Lake Drainage & Levee District (Banc), 257 Mo. 266, 165 S.W. ......
  • Schueler v. City of Kirkwood
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 8 Junio 1915
    ...... application of the broad principle, see Wilson v. King's Lake Drainage etc. Dist., 257 Mo. 266, ... classes of sewers, to-wit: Public, district and private. sewers. Public sewers shall be ......
  • Diekroeger v. Jones
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • 5 Mayo 1941
    ...... . .          (1) A. drainage district is a governmental agency which partakes ... 33, 234 U.S. 339; Wilson v. King's Drainage. District, 176 Mo.App. 470, ...(U.S.) 72;. Hine v. Board of Levee Commissioners, 19 Wall. 655-661, 22 L.Ed. ......
  • Gray v. School Dist. No. 73 of Clay County
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • 5 Mayo 1930
    ......FRED J. GRAY, APPELLANT, v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 73, CLAY COUNTY, MISSOURI ET AL., RESPONDENTS ...646, 42 L.Ed. 310, 17 S.Ct. 957;. Wilson v. Drain. Dist., 257 Mo. 266, 165 S.W. 734;. ......
  • 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