# Commissioners of Saline Branch Drainage District v. Pilcher

> Appellate Court of Illinois · April 25, 1974 · 19 Ill. App. 3d 125

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9523376

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re Petition to Levy Assessments—(Commissioners of Saline Branch Drainage District, Petitioners-Appellees, v. Maryrose Groth Pilcher Et Al., Objectors-Appellants.)
- **Court:** Appellate Court of Illinois
- **Decided:** April 25, 1974
- **Citations:** 19 Ill. App. 3d 125; 310 N.E.2d 454; 1974 Ill. App. LEXIS 2586
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Trapp
- **Judges:** Craven, Trapp
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9523376

## Opinion text

Mr. JUSTICE TRAPP, dissenting:
The orders of the trial court should be affirmed without remand.
The hearings to determine the work to be done and the method of doing such work were concluded in the court’s ruling made in August, 1970. The amended assessment roll was filed in 1972. As objections to such assessment roll, the objectors sought to renew their objections to the work to be done as in the matters previously heard and, in addition, to challenge the fact of a right-of-way for maintenance purposes held by the district.
Upon a hearing of objections to the assessment roll, the two issues presented are: (1) Was the property of a particular owner assessed more than it was benefited, and (2) was the property of a particular owner assessed more than its proportionate share of the cost of the entire improvement. (Commissioner of Drainage District No. 1 v. Goembel, 383 Ill. 323 , 50 N.E.2d 444 ; Lewis Drainage District v. Melville, 388 Ill. 526 , 58 N.E.2d 580 .) This record does not disclose any evidence whatever introduced upon such issues by the objectors. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 42, pars. 5 — 10 and 5 — 7, provide that the assessment roll shall be prima facie evidence on all issues as to the amount of benefits, damages and compensation. Upon the admission of the assessment roll into evidence, the burden shifted to the objectors to offer evidence as to the benefits and assessments of their respective parcels of land. In re Petition of Commissioners v. Dennis, 58 Ill.App.2d 466 , 207 N.E.2d 313 .
The evidence of record supports the conclusion of the court made in 1970 that the restoration of the drainage facility to its condition of almost 40 years ago was necessary, and that the scope and method of the plans proposed were in accord with accepted engineering practice and procedure. An engineer, testifying in behalf of the objectors, stated that certain proposals by objectors for the manner of doing the work would not be readily bid, and that the other proposals did not adequately permit the repair and restoration of field tile and drains in the rural portion of the district.
The objectors introduced no evidence tending to describe how their respective parcels of land would be adversely affected by the proposed method of work. It cannot be ascertained from the record whether or not their respective parcels have trees to be removed from the right-of-way. The record does show that the drainage authorities have met with landowners concerning specific problems in the method of doing the work related to specific parcels of land, and have stated that such would be done with other landowners.
The effect of much of the testimony offered in behalf of objectors would be to take from the district or diminish the beneficial use of the easement for purposes of repair and maintenance heretofore acquired under the statutory authority existing at the time of the organization of the district, and now found in Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 42, par. 4 — 17.
The statute provides that:
“The petition shaH contain the following * * *: (a) a general description of any work or changes proposed to be undertaken * * V (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 42, par. 4 — 19.)
Similarly, in par. 4 — 24, the statute provides that the order of the court found:
“(b) the method by which the things shall be done, * * *."
The effect of the remanding order is to require the trial court to hold hearings and make findings described in detail for the removal of debris from the stream and the clearing of the right-of-way upon each parcel of land on both sides of the 13-mile channel of the drainage facility. It is clear that the statute does not contemplate or provide for such an order as is here entered.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9523376. Public record. Not legal advice.