Neal v. Vansickle

100 N.W. 200, 72 Neb. 105, 1904 Neb. LEXIS 163
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedJune 9, 1904
DocketNo. 13,592
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 100 N.W. 200 (Neal v. Vansickle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Neal v. Vansickle, 100 N.W. 200, 72 Neb. 105, 1904 Neb. LEXIS 163 (Neb. 1904).

Opinion

Ames, C.

In 1903 the legislature passed an act, chapter 116 of the laws, sections 1-19, article IV, chapter 89 of the Compiled Statutes (Annotated Statutes, 5561-5579), the purpose of which is expressed in its title as follows:

“An act to provide for the formation of drainage districts ; for the reclamation and protection of swamp, overflowed, or submerged lands; to provide for the acquirement of rights of way, easements and franchises, or other property necessary to carry out the purposes of this act; to prescribe the course of procedure to lie followed to accomplish such object; and to prescribe a penalty for the wilful and malicious injury or interference with the rights or property of said districts.”

Pursuant to this act, thirteen persons owning contiguous tracts of land in Nemaha and Otoe counties, aggregating nearly 4,000 acres, joined in the execution of articles of association for the creation of a drainage dis[106]*106trict including said lands and also a large number of other tracts in said counties, the owners of which refused to join in such association. The articles thus adopted were filed as the act prescribes and presented to the district court for Nemaha county together with a prayer for an order or judgment establishing the association as a public corporation of the state in conformity to said act. It is not disputed that the entire procedure, including service of process upon the nonconsenting landowners, was in all respects such as is prescribed by sections 1 and 2 of the act for obtaining the judgment prayed for. Various objections were made, by the persons refusing consent, but all united in one contention, namely, that the act mentioned is unconstitutional and void, and solely in consideration thereof the court dismissed the application. The moving parties bring the proceeding to this court by petition in error.

The record thus presents primarily and directly but two questions, namely, whether the drainage of large tracts, swamp and overflowed or submerged lands, is a subject of such public and general interest that the legislature may provide for it by general enactment, and, if so, whether such provision may include the creation of local political organizations to serve as agencies for the accomplishment of the desired end. If these questions are answered in the affirmative, it must, we think, be conceded that the method of creation or organization is a matter purely and exclusively of legislative discretion with which the courts have no power to intermeddle. It will not be contended' that the courts have the right to dictate how road districts or school districts or townships or counties shall be created or organized, nor with what administrative powers or functions they shall be endowed, '(1, obviously, what is true of them in this respect is true of any other similar governmental agency that the legislature may see fit to call into being. The creation of such bodies is an act of sovereignty and the consent of the inhabitants, unless expressly re[107]*107quired by constitutional enactment, has never been thought to be requisite. That the districts contemplated hy the act are intended to be of a purely public and administrative character, is evident as well from the title as from the body of the law itself. Its officers are chosen by popular election and their powers, duties, compensation and terms of service are prescribed by the statute. The sources of its income are predetermined as are also the uses to which it may be applied, and the county treasurer is made the custodian of its funds, and his disbursement of them regulated as in case of other public moneys.

In our opinion, it is too late in the day to contend that' the irrigation of arid lands, the straightening and improvement of watercourses, the building of levees and the drainage of swamp and overflowed lands for the improvement of the health and comfort of the community, and the reclamation of waste places and the promotion of agri•ulture, are not all and every of them subjects of general and public concern, the promotion and regulation of which are among the most important of governmental powers, duties and functions. Authorities to this effect are numerous, and of the highest character, and are so easily accessible that their recapitulation here would serve no useful purpose. They may he found collected in the opinion of the supreme court of Missouri in Mound City Land & Stock Co. v. Miller, 170 Mo. 240, 60 L. R. A. 190, and in an elaborate marginal note. We know of no recent authority to the contrary. The decision of this court in Jenal v. Green Island Draining Co., 12 Neb. 163, much relied upon by defendants in error, is not in conflict herewith. In that case, the body seeking to exercise the powers of eminent domain and of assessment and taxation, was a private corporation having officers and functionaries of its own choosing, governed by rules and regulations of its own devising, and enjoying the free disposition of its income. Such an organization is as unlike that now under discussion as can well be conceived of.

[108]*108The foregoing conclusion, if sound, suffices for the disposition of the present proceeding, because nothing is here involved but the question of the validity of an organization created in the manner prescribed by the act of 1903, and the decision of that question does not preclude a future inquiry into the validity of the poAvers conferred, or sought to be conferred upon it, or the legality of the methods .prescribed or that shall be adopted for their exercise. A municipal corporation Avould not cease to exist because its charter attempted to confer upon it poAvers of assessment or taxation, or of eminent domain or of police regulation in Adolation of the constitution, but its defects and insufficiencies in these respects Avould be .-supplied and remedied by subsequent legislation, and tin' same would be true, under like circumstances, of a drainage district. But, inasmuch as objection is made to the 12th and 11th sections of the act, and inasmuch as these sections prescribe the sole means by which the organization may obtain funds for the prosecution of its purposes, so that, if they were void, it would remain inanimate until vitalized by new legislation, it is important that they receive present consideration. Of these sections the follOAving are copies:

“Sec. 12. As soon as said drainage district shall have been organized as aforesaid, and in order to defray the expenses for said topographical survey, the condemnation of any right of way, easement or franchise and constructing any ditch, drain, dyke or other works, maintain the same, and to pay such officers, servants and employees as are alloAved compensation by law, the said board of supervisors may order the assessment of a tax, not exceeding fifty cents on each acre of land situate in said district to be benefited, Provided, that in apportioning the tax or assessment to be borne by each separate tract of land, due regard shall be had to the amount of benefit expected to accrue, proportionately, to such separate tract and shall be determined in the first instance by the drain commissioner and shall be equalized and approved by [109]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dwyer v. Omaha-Douglas Public Building Commission
195 N.W.2d 236 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1972)
Dwyer v. OMAHA-DOUGLAS PUBLIC BUILDING COM'N
195 N.W.2d 236 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1972)
Lang v. Sanitary District of Norfolk
71 N.W.2d 608 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1955)
Mooney v. Drainage District No. 1
274 N.W. 467 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1937)
Honey Creek Drainage District v. Farm City Investment Co.
32 S.W.2d 753 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1930)
Bannerman v. Catts
85 So. 336 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1920)
Orr v. Allen
245 F. 486 (S.D. Ohio, 1917)
Lainhart v. Catts
75 So. 47 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1917)
White v. Papillion Drainage District
147 N.W. 218 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1914)
Drainage District v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
146 N.W. 1055 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1914)
Whedon v. Wells
145 N.W. 1007 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1914)
O'Neill v. Leamer
142 N.W. 112 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1913)
O'Brien v. Schneider
129 N.W. 1002 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1911)
Drainage District No. 1 v. Richardson County
125 N.W. 796 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1910)
State ex rel. Harris v. Hanson
115 N.W. 294 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 N.W. 200, 72 Neb. 105, 1904 Neb. LEXIS 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neal-v-vansickle-neb-1904.