{
  "id": 4965229,
  "name": "The Commissioners of the Mason and Tazewell Special Drainage District v. William L. Giffin et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Commissioners of Mason & Tazewell Special Drainage District v. Giffin",
  "decision_date": "1888-05-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "561",
  "last_page": "563",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 Ill. App. 561"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "48 Ill. 285",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5226674
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/48/0285-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 283,
    "char_count": 4868,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.488,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15459936081215545
    },
    "sha256": "d5a40eae1f88b385c6b1ba14710fad654836de3d832d98a877b61f6a46d78aaa",
    "simhash": "1:dc7d37e9c2ae7f56",
    "word_count": 821
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:54:32.059595+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The Commissioners of the Mason and Tazewell Special Drainage District v. William L. Giffin et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Conger, P. J.\nThis was a proceeding by certiorari to review the proceedings of the commissioners of the Mason and Tazewell Special Drainage District, whereby it was attempted to enlarge the original boundaries of the district, by attaching thereto the lands and highways within certain prescribed limits, under and by virtue of the provisions of Sec. \u00e92 of the drainage act of 18S5, Suss. Laws 1885, page 91.\nIn the Circuit Court these proceedings of the commissioners were quashed and they bring the case here for review.\nIt is insisted that the Circuit Court of Tazewell county had no jurisdiction of the subject matter, for the reasons that the district was organized in the County Court of Mason county, and their office was in Mason county. The original district comprised territory in both Mason and Tazewell counties, and the lands sought to be annexed are principally in Tazewell county.\nWe do not think this objection well taken. Appellant is a corporation originally created in both counties, and, by the proceedings which arc in this record questioned, operating upon the lands in both counties, and wo are therefore of opinion the Circuit Court of either Tazewell or Mason had jurisdiction of the subject-matter.\nA number of questions are discussed with great ability, hut we deem it necessary to notice but one, and that is whether the proper notice as required by law, was given.\nSection i2 of the act of ,1885 does no.t in terms require notice to he given of the proposed action of the commissioners, but provides: \u201c Drainage commissioners may at any time enlarge the boundaries of their district by attaching new areas of land, which are involved in the same system of drainage, and require for outlets the drains of the district made or proposed to be made, as the case may be, on the petition of as great a proportion of the land owners of the district so enlarged as is required for an original district.\u201d\nIn determining the question of enlargement, the commissioners must determine whether the new area which is proposed to be included in the district, \u201c is involved in the same system of drainage, and requires for outlets the drains of the district,\u201d and in determining this question they must investigate, deliberate and decide, in doing which they act in a quasi judicial capacity. Wright v. City of Chicago, 48 Ill. 285.\nWe are inclined to think that a fair construction of the law of 1885 contemplates the same notice when a district is enlarged, as is required when it is originally formed, and this seems to have been the theory upon which appellant proceeded, as there appears from the record an effort to give the notice as required by Sec. 50 of said act.\nThat section requires notice by posting notices in at least five public places in each township in which said proposed district, or any part thereof shall lie, also by publishing for three successive weeks a like notice in some weekly newspaper in said county or counties, which said notice shall contain a copy of the petition, and state the day of the term of court when such petition and all parties interested will be heard. The posting and first publication of said notices shall be at least twenty days before the hearing of said petition.\nThe first publication in Tazewell County was upon the 23d of December, and the hearing before the commissioners was upon the 10th day of January thereafter, making but eighteen days, instead of twenty, as required.\nIf notice was required at all, a failure to give it would be fatal to the jurisdiction of the commissioners to act.\nWe are inclined to think, therefore, that the proceedings of the commissioners in attempting to enlarge the district were fatally defective for want of the requisite notice, and that the judgment of the Circuit Court, in quashing such proceedings, should be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Conger, P. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Wallace & Prettyman, for appellant.",
      "Messrs. James H. Sedgwick and George Rieer, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The Commissioners of the Mason and Tazewell Special Drainage District v. William L. Giffin et al.\nDrainage \u2014 Enlargement of District \u2014 Notice\u2014Certiorari\u2014\u25a0Act of 1885.\n1. When a drainage district embraces land in two counties, a proceeding by certiorari to review the proceedings of the commissioners is within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of either county.\n2. Upon the proposed enlargement of a drainage district, it is necessary to give the same notice as is required when such district is originally formed.\n3. In the case presented, the notice of the proposed enlargement was insufficient, the first publication thereof having been eighteen flays before the term of the court at which the parties interested were to be heard, instead of twenty days, as required by the act of 1885.\n[Opinion filed May 25, 1888.]\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Tazewell County; the Hon. N. W. Green, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Wallace & Prettyman, for appellant.\nMessrs. James H. Sedgwick and George Rieer, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0561-01",
  "first_page_order": 555,
  "last_page_order": 557
}
