{
  "id": 2944223,
  "name": "Broadway Bank of St. Louis, Missouri, Appellant, v. McGee Creek Levee & Drainage District, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Broadway Bank of St. Louis v. McGee Creek Levee & Drainage District",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "592",
  "last_page": "593",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 592"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 240,
    "char_count": 3776,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.545,
    "sha256": "48bdeef3fe0be9e324a56f7cb8e3a2723a7e8598b1302a6d4d987a46f36e8916",
    "simhash": "1:467dceec901ce6d6",
    "word_count": 636
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:07.214052+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Broadway Bank of St. Louis, Missouri, Appellant, v. McGee Creek Levee & Drainage District, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Courts, \u00a7 95 \u2014when 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.\n3. Drainage\u2014what 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.\n4. Bills and notes, \u00a7 102*\u2014what not negotiable paper. A drainage warrant is not negotiable paper.\n5. Contracts, \u00a7 345*\u2014when 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.\n6. Drainage, \u00a7 57*\u2014when 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.\n7. Drainage, \u00a7 55*\u2014what 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.\n8. Drainage, \u00a7 7*\u2014what 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.\n9. Drainage, \u00a7 51*\u2014what 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.\n10. Drainage, \u00a7 51*\u2014who 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.\n11. Equity\u2014when party\u2019s contentions ineffective. A party\u2019s contentions in a suit which are inconsistent and evasive are ineffective in equity.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George J. Breaker and Anderson & Matthews, for appellant; William M. Fitch, of counsel.",
      "Williams & Williams, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Broadway Bank of St. Louis, Missouri, Appellant, v. McGee Creek Levee & Drainage District, Appellee.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Courts, \u00a7 92 \u2014extent of jurisdiction in drainage matters. In drainage matters the County Court is a court of limited jurisdiction.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Pike county; the Hon. Harry Higbee, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nOpinion filed April 16, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill 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.\nGeorge J. Breaker and Anderson & Matthews, for appellant; William M. Fitch, of counsel.\nWilliams & Williams, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, eame topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0592-01",
  "first_page_order": 618,
  "last_page_order": 619
}