Court Opinion

ID: 7809888
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:11:34.541278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:25.985330
License: Public Domain

HABT, J., (dissenting). Mr. Justice Wood and the writer, after giving this ease that careful consideration which its importance demands, have reached the conclusion that the act is unconstitutional and void and therefore feel impelled to dissent. We are not unmindful that it is the duty of courts to hold an act constitutional where from the language used by the Legislature it is susceptible of that construction; but with equal propriety it may be said that the framers of the act must listen to the voice of the Constitution in passing it. Article 2, section 22, of our Constitution reads as follows: “The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction; and private property shall not be taken, appropriated or damaged for public use, without just compensation therefor.” The parts of the statute which contravene this section of the Constitution are in section 7 and section 8 of the act. See Acts of 1909, p. 829. The part of section 7 referred to is as follows: “The commissioners shall also assess all damages that will accrue to any land owner by reason of the proposed improvement, including all injury to lands taken or damaged; and where they return no such assessment of damages as to any tract of land, it shall be deemed a finding by them that no damage will be sustained. ’ ’ Section 8 is as follows: “Any property owner may accept the assessment of damages in his favor made by the commissioners; or acquiesce in their failure to assess damages in his favor, and shall be construed to have done so unless he gives to said commissioners within thirty days after the assessment is filed, notice in writing that he demands an assessment of his damages by a jury; in which event the commissioners shall institute in the circuit court of the proper county an action to condemn the lands that must be taken or damaged in the making of such improvement; which action shall be in accordance with the proceedings for condemnation of rights-of-way by railroad, telegraph and telephone companies, with the same right of paying into court a sum to be fixed by the circuit court or judge, and proceeding with the work before assessment by the jury. If there is more than one claimant to the lands, all claimants may be made parties defendant in such suit, and the fund paid into court, leaving the claimant to contest in that action their respective rights to the fund.” The determination of the question of just compensation is in its nature judicial. We think it is readily apparent from the part of section 7 of the act just quoted that it is in conflict with the section of the Constitution quoted above. It is true it provides that the commissioners shall assess all damages which will accrue to the land owner by reason of the proposed improvement including all the injuries to the land taken or damaged, still the concluding part of the sentence offends the Constitution. It provides that where the commissioners return no such assessment of damages as to any tract of land it shall be deemed a finding by them that no damage will be sustained. This is legislative dictation and contrary to the Constitution. The vice of the section can best be shown by illustration. For instance, suppose the commissioners for reasons of their own, or through negligence or mistake, fail to estimate the damages to a tract of land or a part thereof appropriated for the right-of-way of the drainage ditch, they would naturally make no return of any assessment of damages as to that tract of land. Under the language of the act their failure to return such assessment of damages is deemed a finding by them that no damage will be sustained. So without any action at all on the part of the commissioners, the owner has his lands taken away from him. This cannot be done. The effect of it would be to take the owner’s land away from him by a mere presumption that the commissioners acted, when in fact they might or might not have done so. The question of whether they did act is one of fact and the right of property would not be before and higher than any constitutional sanction if it could be taken away by a mere presumption that the board had acted, when in fact it had not done so. The section provides that private property shall not be taken, appropriated, or damaged for public use without just compensation therefor. Under that part of the statute in question it is readily apparent that this could be done.- For. whether the commissioners acted or did not act in making an assessment of damages, the statute provides that their failure to act shall be deemed a finding that no damages shall be sustained. Thus the owner’s property might be taken without compensation being made him by the mere failure of the commissioners to act. We cannot subscribe to any such doctrine. We also tliink that section 8 of the act offends in the same way. It provides that the land owner shall be construed to have acquiesced in the failure of the commissioners to assess damages to his land when it is taken or damaged by the drainage district if he fails to give notice in writing within 30 days that he demands an assessment of his damages by a jury. We do not think that the framers of the Constitution meant that the landowner’s property could be taken away from him by mere non-action on his part. We therefore respectfully dissent. WOOD, J., concurs in the dissent.