Case Name: Cat Tail Drainage District, Appellant, v. Johnson Creek Levee & Drainage District, Appellee
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1918-02-12
Citations: 209 Ill. App. 71
Docket Number: Gen. No. 6,512
Parties: Cat Tail Drainage District, Appellant, v. Johnson Creek Levee & Drainage District, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 209
Pages: 71–72

Head Matter:
Cat Tail Drainage District, Appellant, v. Johnson Creek Levee & Drainage District, Appellee.
Gen. No. 6,512. (Not to be reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Evidence—when expert knowledge is unnecessary. The witnesses were qualified to testify to benefits received by plaintiff from defendant’s work without being shown to have expert knowledge, in an action by one drainage district against another under sections 8 and 9 of the Act of 1913 [Callaghan’s 1916 St. Supp. If 4461(8), (9)] to recover the proportional amount of the cost of the construction of an outlet.
Appeal from the County Court of Whiteside county; the Hon. William A. Blodgett, Judge, presiding.
Heard in this court at the October term, 1917.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed February 12, 1918.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Cat Tail Drainage District, plaintiff, against Johnson Creek Levee & Drainage District, defendant, under sections 8 and 9 of the Act of 1913 [Callaghan’s 1916 St. Supp. [[ 4461(8), (9)], to recover the proportional amount of the cost of the construction of an outlet. From a judgment for defendant for $500, on plea of set-off and recoupment, plaintiff appeals.
An appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed. See 275 Ill. 191. The pleadings are stated in that opinion. Plea of nonassumpsit was thereafter filed in the County Court, with notice of matter of set-off and recoupment.
M. C. Rogers and Charles C. McMahon, for appellant.
John A. Riordan and Henry C. Ward, for appellee.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vois. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Dibell
delivered the opinion of the court.
2. Appeal and eerob, § 1498 —when improper exclusion of evidence is harmless error. In an action by one drainage district against another to recover the proportional amount of the cost of construction of an outlet for both districts, the exclusion of certain maps and profile held not reversible error where, other evidence established the facts to be shown by such maps and profile.
3. Deainage, § 51*—when benefits to drainage district before its organization are properly shown in action against adjoining district. Benefits accruing to the lands of a drainage district before it was organized were properly shown under section 9 of the Act of 1913 [Callaghan's 1916 St. Supp. If 4461(8), (9)], in an action under that section by such district against an adjoining organized district, to recover the proportional amount of the cost of construction of an outlet for both districts.
4. Deainage, § 51*—what damages may be recouped by defendant in action by one drainage district against another to recover proportion of cost of construction of outlet. Evidence of damage to the upper drainage district by work done by the lower district, in an action by one drainage district against another, under sections 8 and 9 of the Act of 1913 [Callaghan's 1916 St. Supp. If 4461(8), (9)], to recover the proportional amount of the cost of construction of an outlet, held properly admitted as set-off or recoupment.
5. Deainage, § 51*—when evidence shows benefit to defendant drainage district from improvements by plaintiff district. Evidence held sufficient to warrant the finding that the drainage improvements made by plaintiff had benefited and not damaged defendant, in an action by one drainage district against another, under sections 8 and 9 of the Act of 1913 [Callaghan's 1916 St. Supp. If 4461(8), (9)], to recover the proportion of the cost of construction of an outlet for the use of both districts.