People ex rel. Cooley v. Schenck, 252 Ill. 441 (1911)

Dec. 21, 1911 · Illinois Supreme Court

252 Ill. 441

The People ex rel. I. N. Cooley, County Collector, Defendant in Error, vs. Sarah L. Schenck, Plaintiff in Error.

Opinion filed December 21, 1911.

1. Taxes—drainage record is the only legal evidence of action of copipvissioners. The record which the statute requires to be kept of the proceedings of farm drainage commissioners is the only legal evidence of their actions.

2. Same—official action shown by drainage record is presumed to have been within limits of district. Official action shown by the record of farm drainage commissioners will be presumed to have been within the limits of the district where the record is silent upon the point, and the burden of showing the contrary, in a proceeding to collect the drainage assessment, is upon the party raising the objection.

Writ oE Error to the County Court of Edgar county; the Hon. Walter S. Damon, Judge, presiding.

F. C. VanSELLAR, for plaintiff in error.

Frank T. O’Hair, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Dunn

delivered the opinion of the court:

The objection to the drainage tax assessed under the Farm Drainage act involved in this appeal was, that there was no legal classification of the lands of the district because the meeting at which the classification was made was not held within the boundaries of the district and the record of the commissioners failed to show any legal meeting for the • purpose of classification held within such boundaries. The evidence to sustain this objection consisted of certain portions of the drainage record showing the meetings of the commissioners and their action but not showing where the meetings were held. No parol testimony was heard and there was therefore no evidence as to where the meetings were held. A record of the proceedings of drainage commissioners is required to be kept, and such record is the only legal evidence of their action. Official action shown by such record will be presumed to have been within the limits of the district, within which, only, official power can be exercised. The burden of showing the contrary in this case was on the plaintiff in error, but she offered no evidence to sustain it.

Judgment affirmed.