#### Broadway Bank of St. Louis, Missouri, Appellant, v. McGee Creek Levee & Drainage District, Appellee.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Courts, § 92 * —extent of jurisdiction in drainage matters. In drainage matters the County Court is a court of limited jurisdiction.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Pike county; the Hon. Harry Higbee, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Opinion filed April 16, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Bill by Broadway Bank of St. Louis, Missouri, complainant, against the McGee Creek Levee & Drainage District, defendant, to vacate and set aside a certain order of the County Court abating the excess of a certain assessment of benefits for certain construction work of defendant over a certain bond issue based on such assessment, and to declare the original order for the assessment to be in full force, and a certain warrant for $7,000 issued by defendant for money borrowed on account of such work a lien against such assessment. From a decree dismissing the bill for want of equity, complainant appeals.

George J. Breaker and Anderson & Matthews, for appellant; William M. Fitch, of counsel.

Williams & Williams, for appellee.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, eame topic and section number.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court.

*5932. Courts, § 95 * —when no presumption as to jurisdiction. There is no presumption in favor of the jurisdiction of the County Court in a statutory proceeding even when the attack on the jurisdiction is collateral.

3. Drainage—what are requisites of petition to vacate order of County Court as to abatement of assessments. In a proceeding in the County Court under the drainage statute, to vacate an order of the County Court abating the excess of an assessment of benefits for construction work over a bond issue based on such assessment, the statute must be literally complied with both as to the subject-matter and the person, and if the petition is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction the appearance and consent of the landowners do not have that effect.

4. Bills and notes, § 102*—what not negotiable paper. A drainage warrant is not negotiable paper.

5. Contracts, § 345*—when assignee of drainage warrant may sue in own name. The assignee of a drainage warrant may maintain suit thereon in his own name subject to the equities between the original parties.

6. Drainage, § 57*—when warrant lien on assessment. Under section 38 of the Levee Act (J. & A. jf 4419), a warrant for borrowed money is a lien on the assessment.

7. Drainage, § 55*—what warrants payable out of. A drainage warrant for borrowed money is only payable out of assessments made when the order authorizing the warrant was issued.

8. Drainage, § 7*—what is nature of district organised under Levee Act. A district organized under the Levee Act is a body politic and corporate, subject to sue and to be sued as any other municipal corporation.

9. Drainage, § 51*—what must be alleged as' to nature of district in suit against it. In suing a district organized under the Levee Act it is not necessary to allege in terms that it is a corporation, but it is sufficient to allege facts which show it to be a corporation.

10. Drainage, § 51*—who not necessary parties in suit against district. A district organized under the Levee Act represents the property owners, and such owners are not necessary parties to a suit in equity against the district.

11. Equity—when party’s contentions ineffective. A party’s contentions in a suit which are inconsistent and evasive are ineffective in equity.