Yeomans v. Riddle
Decision Date | 18 December 1891 |
Citation | 50 N.W. 886,84 Iowa 147 |
Parties | J. D. YEOMANS et al., Appellants, v. J. N. RIDDLE et al., Appellees |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Monona District Court.--HON. GEORGE W. WAKEFIELD, Judge.
CERTIORARI to review the proceedings of the board of supervisors of Monona county to repair, deepen, and improve a county ditch and to assess the cost thereof upon landowners along and in the vicinity of the ditch. A demurrer to the plaintiffs' petition was sustained, and from that ruling they appeal.
Affirmed.
Joy Hudson, Call & Joy, for appellants.
H Chrisman and Wright & Hubbard, for appellees.
I. As the only questions in the case arise upon a demurrer to the petition, it becomes necessary, for a correct understanding of the case, to set out in full these proceedings. They are as follows:
"Petition: The plaintiffs, for cause of action against the defendants, state: That the plaintiffs are all taxpayers of Monona county, Iowa. That they are the several owners of a large number of tracts of land in said county, lying along and in the vicinity of a certain ditch or excavation known as the 'Persons Ditch.' That the above-named defendants are the members of the board of supervisors of said county. That on or about the second day of October, A. D. 1889, said board of supervisors levied and assessed, or attempted to levy and assess, a tax upon each of the aforesaid tracts of land of the plaintiffs, lying along or in the vicinity of said Persons ditch, for the payment of costs and expenses of reopening, repairing, and deepening said ditch, and for certain alleged improvements upon the same, and made an order directing the auditor of said county to carry said assessment against the lands of plaintiffs upon the tax lists of said county for the year of 1889. That said board of supervisors exceeded its jurisdiction, and otherwise acted illegally, in making said order and levying and assessing said tax upon the lands of the plaintiffs, as aforesaid, and that said levy and assessment, and the action and proceeding of said board of supervisors making, ordering, and directing the same, is and was without jurisdiction, and null and void, for the following reasons, to wit:
First. Said board of supervisors had no jurisdiction to reopen, deepen, or repair said ditch, or to cause the same to be done, or to make any order for the reopening, deepening, repairing, or improving of the same, and all the acts, orders, and proceedings of said board of supervisors, defendants, in relation thereto are and were wholly unauthorized, illegal and void for that: (a) No petition for the reopening, deepening, or repairing of said ditch, or for making any of the alleged improvements thereon, signed by a majority of persons resident of said county, owning lands along or adjacent to such ditch, was ever filed with the auditor of said county, or presented to or heard by said board of supervisors, and no bond was filed, as provided by section 1208 of the Code of Iowa. (b) The petition, if any, for reopening, deepening, or repairing said ditch, was not placed in the hands of the county surveyor or a competent engineer, and no return was made by such surveyor or engineer, as provided by law. (c) No notice in writing of the pendency and prayer of any petition for reopening, deepening, or repairing said ditch, or the session of the board of supervisors at which the same was heard, was ever at any time served upon the plaintiffs or the owners of land lying upon or along the route of said ditch; nor was any right to reopen, deepen, or repair the same acquired, as provided by law. (d) The order for the reopening, deepening, and repairing said ditch was made and entered at a special session of said board of supervisors, held more than ten days after the alleged request, if any, was made therefor and filed, and no notice of said special session, or the purpose for which the same was held, was ever given or published as provided by law. (e) Said board of supervisors did not divide said ditch into sections and prescribe the time within which the work on each section should be completed; and the notice of the letting of the work upon said ditch, provided by section 1212 of the Code of Iowa, did not divide the same into sections, specifying the kind and amount of work to be done on each section, and the time fixed for the completion of the same as provided by law. (f) After the original assessment or report of the appraisers had been duly signed and filed, a long list of lands, not contained or included in said original assessment or report, was added or attached thereto, without the knowledge or consent of said appraisers, and after their duties as such had been fully discharged and performed, and their office had expired and ceased, which said list is the sole basis of a large portion of the tax so levied and assessed upon and against the lands of the plaintiffs.
To this petition the defendants filed the following demurrer ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Freeman v. Trimble
...Schneider v. Menasha, 118 Wis. 298, 99 Am. St. Rep. 996, 95 N.W. 94; Cummins v. Seymour, 79 Ind. 491, 41 Am. Rep. 618; Yeomans v. Riddle, 84 Iowa 147, 50 N.W. 890; McBean v. Fresno, 112 Cal. 159, 31 L.R.A. 794, Am. St. Rep. 191, 44 P. 358; Manning v. Devils Lake, 13 N.D. 47, 65 L.R.A. 187, ......
- Yeomans v. Riddle