173 N.E. 108 | Ill. | 1930
This is an appeal from the county court of Edgar county which rendered judgment on the verdict of a jury on objections filed by certain land owners to a classification of the lands in the district known as Drainage District No. 7 of the Town of Buck, in Edgar county. The jury returned a verdict confirming the classification and the court rendered judgment on the verdict.
The district was organized many years ago and successive assessments have been made at different times. Certain land owners claimed they had not received the benefits contemplated by the organization of the district. Suits were brought against the commissioners of the district in mandamus and for damages, and as a result of the suits by the land owners the commissioners on the 29th of September, *136 1928, adopted plans for doing additional work in the district, which consisted of laying certain new strings of tile and procuring additional right of way. The commissioners found that the classification theretofore made was not in accordance with justice and right and adopted a new classification under section 21 of the Farm Drainage act. (Smith's Stat. 1929, chap. 42, p. 1145.) The new classification was made in September, 1928. The abstract does not show it, but both sides say there was no money on hand for doing the new work. The second hearing on the appeal of the land owners was set for March 12, 1930. On March 11, 1930, the drainage commissioners held a meeting, at which they made certain changes in their plans, none of them, as we understand it, being of great importance. The record is most imperfectly abstracted, but we understand the principal change made was a decision to relay 400 feet of tile, which tile objectors complained were defective and that the line had a hump in it. When the case came on for hearing on March 12, 1930, appellants asked for a continuance. The abstract does not show this, but appellees assert, and it is not denied by appellants, that the court instructed appellants to make an affidavit in support of their motion for a continuance, which they declined to do, and the court overruled the motion. Appellants offered no testimony on the trial, and after appellees' testimony was heard the court directed the jury to return a verdict confirming the classification. Such a verdict was returned and the court rendered judgment thereon. This appeal is from that judgment.
We regret to say that the abstract filed by appellants is so imperfect as to not show the real condition of the case and the ground of objections of appellants. It scarcely intimates what the case is about. It does not contain plans of the district or sufficiently show the classification list as to make understandable the points made by appellants. It does not even show the judgment appealed from. Rule 14 *137
of this court requires the abstract to present clearly and concisely a complete abstract of the record so as to show its substance. The rule was adopted to promote the work of the court, and it made it the duty of the parties bringing cases here to make an abstract that would show clearly the points made. This rule was before this court in Staude v. Schumacher,
For failure to comply with rule 14 by filing a sufficient abstract the judgment of the county court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed. *138
