Nos. 15,876—(111) | Minn. | Feb 5, 1909
On April 17, 1905, a petition for the construction of a ditch lying wholly in Morrison county, Minnesota, was filed in the office of the county auditor of that county. An engineer was appointed, his report and that of viewers made, and notice given that the matter would be heard before the county commissioners on October 16, 1905. The ditch was established, contracts for its construction entered into, and the work completed in November 1906. The respondent owns land six or seven miles from the place where the ditch enters Tittle Elk river. On August 24, 1906, a heavy rain caused the water to rise in the ditch and river and overflow the land.
The order of the trial court must be affirmed, notwithstanding the provision of the drainage law that the act shall be liberally construed, so as to promote the purposes for which the statute was enacted. This ditch was never legally established, because the description in the proceedings was so indefinite and uncertain that the ditch could not be accurately located. The contractor constructed a ditch somewhere in the vicinity of the engineer’s survey; but it does not follow that the ditch was constructed where the county commissioners intended to locate it. The petition in such a proceeding must set forth the necessity for such a ditch, that it will be for the public benefit and promote the public health and-contain “a description of the proposed starting points, routes and termini.” A petition in proper form, filed as required by the statute, is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the-authority of the county commissioners to entertain a proceeding thereunder; but the description of the proposed ditch need not be stated
But the order describing the ditch must, either in itself or by reference to the engineer’s report, definitely describe it. State v. Lindig, supra; Sonnek v. Town of Minnesota Lake, 50 Minn. 558" court="Minn." date_filed="1892-07-22" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/sonnek-v-town-of-minnesota-lake-7967570?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7967570">50 Minn. 558, 53 N.W. 961" court="Mich." date_filed="1892-12-22" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/cleveland-v-miller-7936159?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7936159">53 N. W. 961. The statute (Raws 1905, p. 310, c. 330, § 5) provided that the engineer “shall make a detailed and complete report of his doings, and submit therewith the necessary plans and specifications and a description of the lands over which the ditch or ditches is or are surveyed.” Section 10 requires that the commissioners, after the hearing, “shall by an order containing such findings establish such ditch as specified in the report of the civil engineer, and establish and confirm the viewers’ report.” The order in question, after reciting that the report of the engineer had been made and filed, stated that: “Being satisfied that the proposed ditch will be of public utility and conducive to public health and public benefit and convenience, do hereby locate and establish the said ditch according to the report and the specifications of said civil engineer made and filed herein.”
The engineer’s report contained no description, unless by reference to a plat or diagram. The report shows that the engineer made a survey of the line of the proposed ditch and set stakes one hundred feet apart along the line. A plat, which was filed in the auditor’s office, but not attached to the report, was intended presumably to show the location of the ditch. It contains lines and numbers which were evidently intended to represent sections. There was also another plat showing a profile of the ditch.
It is claimed that the report, together with these plats, sufficiently show the location of the ditch. The correctness of this claim must be determined from an inspection of the plats, which are too complicated
The order establishing the ditch was therefore void, and its maintenance was properly enjoined. The principle is that applied in Chadbourne v. Zilsdorf, 34 Minn. 43, 24 N. W. 308.
Order affirmed.