Taylor v. Drainage District No. 56
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Emmet District Court. — Hon. D. F, Coyle, Judge. The fee title to the fractional quarter section of land is in the plaintiff, Kirby, a resident of Emmet county, and of him the other plaintiff, Taylor, purchased the same September 16, 1910, under written contract, by the terms of which, upon payment of the purchase price, Kirby was to convey the premises to Taylor and the latter entered into possession March 1, 1911. It appears that on October 15, 1909, certain…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Emmet District Court. — Hon. D. F, Coyle, Judge. The fee title to the fractional quarter section of land is in the plaintiff, Kirby, a resident of Emmet county, and of him the other plaintiff, Taylor, purchased the same September 16, 1910, under written contract, by the terms of which, upon payment of the purchase price, Kirby was to convey the premises to Taylor and the latter entered into possession March 1, 1911. It appears that on October 15, 1909, certain landowners had petitioned the board of supervisors to establish a drainage district, which included the land in question;…
1Opinion of the CourtLadd, C. J.
According to the petition, the drainage district was established in substantial compliance with the statutes on the subject, and the improvement made under contract entered into in pursuance of the course prescribed. The main question involved is whether the notice by publication was sufficient to meet the requirements of the Constitution in exacting that the property of plaintiffs might not be taken without due process of law. The statute relating to the establishment of drainage districts and the matter of improvements therein need only be set out in so far as they relate to matters now in…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Taylor v. SecorSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Hagar v. Reclamation District No. 108Supreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Bailey v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. BackusSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Foltz, Van Camp Hdw., Etc. v. City of Indpls.Indiana Supreme Court · 1955
- Wyoming State Highway Department v. NapolitanoWyoming Supreme Court · 1978
- State Ex Rel. Iowa State Highway Commission v. ReadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1975
- North Laramie Land Co. v. HoffmanWyoming Supreme Court · 1923
- Kerr v. ChiltonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1958
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.