Exchange Trust Co. v. Drainage Dist. No. 7
278 U.S. 421 (1929)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Exchange Trust Co. v. Drainage Dist. No. 7, 278 U.S. 421 (1929)

Exchange Trust Company v. Drainage District No. 7

No. 114

Argued January 9, 1929

Decided January 21, 1929

278 U.S. 421

Syllabus

1. Irregularities in proceedings for the annexation of new lands to a special improvement district and for assessment of benefits may be cured by an act of the legislature confirming a reassessment. P. 278 U. S. 424.

2. A settler under the homestead law who invited and secured an annexation of his land to a state drainage district and afterwards obtained his equitable title through a final entry of the

Page 278 U. S. 422

land is estopped from asserting that the assessment subsequently imposed on him for the benefits accruing from the drainage are void because the land was owned by the United States at the time of such annexation. Lee v. Osceola Road District,268 U. S. 643, distinguished. P. 278 U. S. 425.

3. Independently of estoppel, the defense of governmental immunity is inapplicable, since the drainage plan and proposed assessments affecting the land in question were filed after the homesteader had received his final certificate, and were approved, and the work done, after he had received his patent. P. 278 U. S. 425.

175 Ark. 934 affirmed in part. Reversed in part by a consent order.

This suit was begun by Rice and revived by his above-named executor in the Chancery Court, Arkansas. Its purpose was to set aside various special assessments on Rice's land, made by the Drainage District, and others made by its codefendant, the St. Francis Levee District, and resulting foreclosures, deeds, etc. A decree granted the plaintiff by the Chancery Court was reversed by the decree of the state supreme court here reviewed. The controversy with the Levee District is settled by a consent order set forth in the opinion.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.