Case Name: The Etchison Ditching Association v. Jarrell
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1870
Citations: 33 Ind. 131
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Etchison Ditching Association v. Jarrell.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 131–132

Head Matter:
The Etchison Ditching Association v. Jarrell.
Draining Association — Assessment.—Description of Land. — Suit by a ditch** ing association to 'enforce an assessment upon land, described in the com* plaint as the “south half of the south-east quarter oí section twenty-seven, in township twenty-one, north, in range six east, in the county of'Madison.” The assessment on which the suit was brought described the land thus: “S.£ S-E. See. 27, T. 21, R. 6, E., twenty aGres.”
Meld, on demurrer, that the description in the assessment was sufficient.
Samis. — Report of Appraisers. — tSho report of the appraisers set out in a complaint to enforce an assessment ou land under the ditching law did' not state whether the'assessment made by them was of benefits or of injuries.
Meld, that this omission rendered the complaint bad on demurrer.
APPEAR from', tbe Madison Circuit Court.
W. R. Pierse and H. D. Thompson, for appellant.
J. W. Sansberry and. E. B. Goodykoontz, for appellee.

Opinion:
Ray, J.
Suit to enforce an assessment upon land of the appellee under the ditching law.' Demurrer sustained to the.complaint, .and judgment for appellee. It was objected that the description of the land assessed was too indefinite, being, " S -1-' S. E. Sec. 27 T. 27, R. 6, E., 20 acres." The complaint describes .the land as the "south half of the south-east quarter of section twenty-seven in township twenty-one north, in range six, east, in the county of Madison." Wé think the " quarter " section would be understood, and the description in the assessment returned by the appraisers sufficient. So as to the number of acres. It may be a fractional section and the number stated accurate; but if not, the particular description must control, and the number of acres mustie found5 from this description. But another objection taken is fatal. The report of the assessors does not state whether the assessment they have made is of benefits or' injuries. In the one case it comes ftom.the owner, in the othergoes to him. This is in no sense a fulfilment of the requirement of the statute. 1 Gf. & II. 304, sec. 12.
There was no error, therefore, in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint.
Judgment affirmed.