TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Johannes v. Thayer County

H. C. Johannes v. Thayer County

Johannes v. Thayer Cnty., 120 N.W. 176 (Neb. 1909)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Nebraska Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 5, 1909
Docket
No. 15,509
Judges
Duffie, Epperson, Galkins, Good
Citations
120 N.W. 17683 Neb. 6891909 Neb. LEXIS 95
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Constitutional Law. Section 5514, Ann. St. 1907, in so far as it , assumes to authorize an appeal from the decision of the county . board upon the questions of public utility, is void. i
Summary
Appeal from the district court for Thayer county: ! Leslie G. Hurd, Judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Epperson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Epperson, C.

The appellants filed a petition with the county board of Thayer county, asking for the construction of a drain with a vieiv of draining certain farm lands and public roads in that county. The petition was filed under the provisions of section 5500 et seq., Ann. St. 1907. Upon receipt of said petition, the county commissioners viewed the premises and found that the said improvement ditch or drain was not necessary, and would not be conducive to the public health, convenience or welfare, and dismissed the appellants’ petition. An appeal was taken to *690 the district court, where a trial was had, and the action of the county hoard sustained.

We have not examined the evidence. The only argument made by the appellants is that the proposed improvement would be conducive to the public health, convenience and welfare, and that the drain is necessary for the reclamation of the appellants’ land. In Tyson v. Washington County, 78 Neb. 211 , with which we are content, it was held in effect that the question of drainage is a matter of governmental policy, and that the power to exercise control over administrative bodies cannot be conferred upon the courts by the legislature, and that section 5514, Ann. St. 1907, in so far as it is assumed to authorize an appeal from the decision of the county board upon the question of public utility, is inoperative.

We therefore recommend that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.

Duffie, Good and Galkins, CO., concur.

By the Court: For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1944: 119442026peak 1944 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Loup River Public Power District v. County of Platte14 N.W.2d 210 (Neb. 1944) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. Loup River Public Power District v. County of Platte14 N.W.2d 210 (Neb. 1944) · Dissent

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Tyson v. Wash. Cnty., 110 N.W. 634 (Neb. 1907) 31

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list