Evening Republican, Volume 17, Number 98, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 24 April 1913 — D. K. YEOMAN VICTOR IN SUPREME COURT [ARTICLE]

D. K. YEOMAN VICTOR IN SUPREME COURT

Wins Gault Ditch Case and Will Now Be Able to Collect About $22,000 for Construction.

The supreme court has reversed the .appellate court in the Gault ditch case from Pulaski county, and held that the collections of assessments can not be enjoined. David H. Yeoman, of Rensselaer, the contractor who built the Gault ditch, was interested to the amount of about $22,000. When the ditch was completed the land owners sought to enjoin the collection of assessments. The action was based upon the fact that a contract had been previously let and that the contractor, Hillis, by name, had not completed the ditch and collection had not been made on his bond following his default. The contract was then let to Yeoman, at an increase of price. He completed the ditch, making a good ditch. To pay for it the full assessments, as formerly made, were necessary, and then the injunction suit was brought. The circuit court held’against the injunction, but the appellate court reversed and the' case went to the supreme court with the results above stated. Mr. Yeoman’s attorneys were E. B. Sellers, of Monticello, and W. H. Parkinson, of Rensselaer.

Mr. Yeoman is, of course, very much pleased with the outcome of i;he suit, as he would have lost all the money due if the appellate court had been sustained. He will now have cause for suit on the bond given by the land owners who sought to enjoin payment, and should thus be able to collect for lis own considerable loss in time, nterest and legal expense in flghtng the case through the courts. The following points set out in the opinion of the higher court were mentioned in the Indianapolis Star: Appellate Court Reversed—Ditch 3a5e.—22394. Murray et al vs. Gault, Pulaski C. C. Transferred from Appellate Court and affirmed. Morris, J. Meyers, C. J., not participating. For the opinion of the Appdlate Court reversing the case see 98 N. E. 878. (1). The ditch proceeding was under the amended drainage act of 1881 as amended by the act of 1891, 1893, and 1903. (2) A provise in a statute can not enlarge it, but can only act to limit it. 3) The proceeding being trans- : erred by operation of law under the act of 1907, no notice was necessary to any of the parties. The law was notice. (4) The viewers did not allot the benefit, but made a report of 'cost of construction. The allotted assessment was not an alottment of benefits. (5) The fact ;hat there is a bond by the defaulting contractor which has not )een recovered on, is not a defense to the additional assessments. -(6) The court having no jurisdiction of the drainage proceeding is authorized to administer any relief necessary in a proceeding in that case and court at law, and an injunction proceeding to prevent collection was not authorized, j;