Case Title: Hubenthal v. Crain

Citation: 159 N.E.2d 850, 239 Ind. 646

Docket Number: 29,691

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1959-07-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
239 Ind. 646 (1959)
159 N.E.2d 850
HUBENTHAL ET AL.
v.
CRAIN ET AL.
No. 29,691.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed July 9, 1959.
*647 Hillis & Hillis, John T. Hillis and Tom F. Hirschauer, all of Logansport, for appellants.
Hanna & Small, Frederick Hanna and Norman Kiesling, all of Logansport, for appellees.
ACHOR, C.J.
This cause was initiated by a petition filed in the Cass Circuit Court for "the cleanout, alteration and repair of the Gault Drain." The Gault Ditch *648 was first established in the year 1907 (see Murray v. Gault (1913), 179 Ind. 658, 101 N.E. 632) as an open ditch, extending through the counties of Cass, Fulton and Pulaski.
The petition was docketed and referred to the Cass County Surveyor and viewers.
The surveyor thereupon laid out the ditch, establishing Stations "O" and "484" (at 100 foot distances). The surveyor and viewer divided the territory affected for assessment purposes into four watershed areas. Assessments were originally set up, at $1.00 per acre in area one; $2.50 in area two; $4.50 in area three; and $7.00 in area four. Some ninety-six remonstrances were filed. These remonstrances asserted among other things:
Pursuant to these remonstrances, however, work on all of area one, which was clearing of brush from Station "0" to "168" was later eliminated by the court, on suggestion of petitioners.
After hearing the court entered a judgment which modified the assessments by providing as follows:
Thereby the court generally reaffirmed the method of determining assessments of all property owners solely according to the watershed area in which the land was located, which method was as previously employed by the surveyor and viewers.
Appellants here assert that the judgment, based upon this manner and method of establishing the assessments against appellants, was contrary to law for the reason that the statute contemplates that costs shall be apportioned to individual landowners according to their special benefits.
In this case the assessment per acre was arrived at initially by the surveyor and viewers and finally by the court by first estimating the cost of an arbitrary segment of ditch which laid within a watershed area and then dividing the number of acres in the watershed area into said estimated cost. The extent to which the particular land would or would not be benefited as compared with other land in the area was not considered in establishing the particular assessment.
For example high grounds, some one and one-half miles distant from the open ditch and containing little or no artificial drainage, were assessed by same as low muck ground which could not be adequately drained except by deepening the ditch. This method of assessment was adopted on the theory that all land in the watershed area was equally liable for the repair of the ditch, irrespective of the fact that said high grounds would receive little benefit from the project as compared with the low lands affected.
*650 The testimony of one of the viewers regarding the method used for assessing benefits is as follows:
Our courts have stated many criteria which are proper to be considered in assessing benefits upon a particular parcel of land. Generally, however, it has been stated:
*651 However, the clear mandate of our statute is that the costs of installation or repair of drains "shall be apportioned according to the benefits derived therefrom." § 27-120(e), Burns' 1948 Repl. (1957 Supp.)
In the apportionment of benefits, the viewers may not limit their consideration to the legal liability, which the law imposes generally upon the landowners of a watershed area by reason of indirect benefits which they receive from the drain, but they must also consider the fact that the owners of the higher land have a right to the natural drainage of their land and that the owners of the low lands must assume this burden different from their better situated neighbors. Culbertson v. Knight (1899), 152 Ind. 121, 52 N.E. 700. And further, that although the owners of the higher lands are chargeable for the additional burden caused by their artificial drainage, Culbertson v. Knight, supra; Lipes et al. v. Hand et al., supra; McDaniel v. Beazell (1934), 206 Ind. 168, 188 N.E. 670; Sharp v. Eaton (1911), 175 Ind. 441, 94 N.E. 753, owners of the low lands must also be charged according to the benefits which they receive from the increased artificial drainage which the ditch provides. Watson v. Armstrong, supra, 180 Ind. 49, 102 N.E. 273; Lipes et al. v. Hand et al., supra; Parke County Coal Company v. Campbell, Surveyor of Parke County (1894), 140 Ind. 28, 39 N.E. 149, 39 N.E. 558.
These essential factors were not considered in the schedule of assessments as originally determined by the viewers or as finally adjudicated by the court. This fact is pointed up by the testimony of appellees' own witnesses. According to the evidence most favorable for appellees, the lands of certain high lands were benefited to the extent of $10.00 to $15.00 an acre, whereas the owner of muck land *652 within the same watershed area testified that the proposed reconstruction and repair would increase the value of his muck land by $50.00 an acre. Any method of determination which equalized the assessments imposed upon these parcels of land is arbitrary and in direct conflict with the statute which provides that "The cost ... shall be apportioned according to the benefits derived therefrom." (Our italics.)
Judgment is therefore reversed with instructions to sustain appellants' motion for new trial.
Arterburn, Bobbitt and Jackson, JJ., concur.
Landis, J., not participating.
NOTE.  Reported in 159 N.E.2d 850.