SOLIAH
v.
HESKIN ET AL., DRAIN COMMISSIONERS OF TRAILL COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA

U.S. | 1912-01-09
No. 76
222 U.S. 522 Supreme Court of the United States (1912) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 56 L. Ed. 294 · 32 S. Ct. 103 · 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2205 · SCDB 1911-120
Cited by 19 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

A North Dakota statute authorized county commissioners to appoint a Drainage Board to construct drains and assess special taxes on affected landowners to cover costs. The Supreme Court affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment does not prevent a state from empowering appointed officials to determine whether a drainage project serves the public benefit and to impose special assessments on benefited properties, provided landowners receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the assessment becomes a lien.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Lamar.

Memorandum opinion by direction of the court.

Mr. Justice Lamar. . Under the North Dakota statute (ch. 23, Political Code; Rev. Codes 1905) the County Commissioners are authorized to appoint a Drainage Board in each county. On the petition of six persons, owning land to be affected, or of a sufficient number to show a public demand where the drain is intended to benefit a township, the board makes a preliminary examination. If it finds that the drain is for the public good and will cost less than the benefits, “notice containing a copy of the petition is published and an opportunity to be heard upon the matters pertaining thereto afforded the owners of all lands to be affected.” “If it shall appear that there was sufficient cause for the making of such petition, and that the proposed drain will not cost more than the amount of the benefit,” the board shall establish the drain. Their assessment of benefits is subject tc review, but, when confirmed, is final, and is then extended on the tax list and collected as other taxes— the amount assessed to any township is required to be included in its first general tax levy thereafter. The plaintiffs in error, owning land in Mayville and Morgan Townships, North Dakota, brought proceedings to enjoin a Drainage Board appointed by County Commissioners from making and collecting special assessments against plaintiffs in error and the townships for their proportion of the cost of a drain ordered to be constructéd.

The Supreme Court of the State held that, while taxes could only be levied by elected officers, special assessments for benefits conferred by such drains might be imposed by appointed officers, and that the statute afforded due process of law. So far as the Federal questions are concerned, the judgment must be affirmed. For—

1. The Fourteenth Amendment does not deprive a State of the power to determine what duties may be performed by local officers, nor whether they shall be appointed, or elected by the people. Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U. S. 71; 83; Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R., 211 U. S. 210; County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691, 706; Fallbrook District v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 167.

2. Neither does that Amendment invalidate an act authorizing an appointed board to determine whether a, proposed drain will be of public benefit, and to create a drainage district consisting of land which it decides will be benefited by such drain, and to make special assessments accordingly, if, as here, notice is given and an opportunity to be heard afforded the land owner before the assessment becomes a lien against his property. Ibid.

3. Nor does that Amendment deprive a State of the power .to compel a township, as one of its political subdivisions, to levy and collect taxes for the purpose of paying the amount assessed against such township for the public benefits accruing from the construction of the drain. Ibid; Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548, 589-593; County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691, 703-704.

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1962)
    …e form of a State’s governmental organization as will permit persons affected by government action to complain that in its organization principles of separation of powers have been violated. E. g., Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U. S. 71; Soliah v. Heskin, 222 U. S. 522; Houck v. Little River Drainage District, 239 U. S. 254. The same consistent refusal of this Court to find that the Federal Constitution restricts state power to design the structure of state political institutions is reflected in the cases rejecti…
  • Hughes v. Superior Court of Cal. for Contra Costa Cnty., 339 U.S. 460 (U.S. 1950)
    …; Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U. S. 1, 11. For the Fourteenth Amendment leaves the States free to distribute the powers of government as they will between their legislative and judicial branches. Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U. S. 71, 83-84; Soliah v. Heskin, 222 U. S. 522, 524; Erie R. Co. v. Board of Public Util. Comm’rs, 254 U. S. 394, 413; Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U. S. 210, 225; Keller v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 261 U. S. 428, 443. “[R]ights under that amendment turn on the power of the State, no…
  • Embree v. Kan. City & Liberty Boulevard Rd. Dist., 240 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1916)

Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw