tricts, and requiring the county commissioners to fix the boundaries thereof "with a view to promoting the interest of said drainage district," and providing that the district may condemn private property for its use in constructing drains, dykes, or levees, is not open to the objection that it permits the organization of a corporation in furtherance of private interests, and permits the taking of property for private purposes. State, ex rel. Harris, v. Hanson, 80 Neb. 724 (115 N. W. 294).

1h. (1908.) From the language used in chapter 153, laws 1907, it is apparent that the legislature intended that the provisions of the act should not be applied except that the county board should prescribe a district which, if organized and improved, would in fact promote the public health, convenience or welfare. State, ex rel. Harris, v. Hanson, 80 Neb. 738 (117 N. W. 412).

Establishment by landowners over lands of others.

2.

(1881.) Three individuals, by forming a corporation, may locate and open a drain across the property of others without their consent, under section 19, article IV, chapter 39, Compiled Statutes. Jenal v. Green Island Draining Co., 12 Neb. 163 (10 N. W. 547).

3. (1881.) Drains or levees for the reclamation of wet or overflowed lands can be constructed across the lands of others, and the cost assessed thereon, except by consent, only in cases where the public welfare will be subserved. Jenal v. Green Island Draining Co., 12 Neb. 163 (10 N. W. 547). Proceedings for establishment.

4. (1887.) In a proceeding to establish a drain or ditch, under chapter 89 of Compiled Statutes, the jurisdictional facts are, first, a petition signed by one or more owners of land to be affected by the proposed ditch; second, the bond provided by statute; third, that the proposed Improvement is necessary, and will be conducive to the health, convenience, and welfare of the public; and fourth, the statutory notice, and the failure of the county board to find that the signers of the petition are owners of lands to be affected is not jurisdictional. Dakota County v. Cheney, 22 Neb. 437 (35 N. W. 211); (1891) Darst v. Griffin, 31 Neb. 668 (48 N. W. 819); (1901) Dodge County v. Acom, 61 Neb. 376 (85 N. W. 292).

5. (1897.) In a proceeding to establish a drainage ditch under article 1, chapter 89

of the Compiled Statutes, one of the jurisdictional facts which the county board is required to find and enter upon its journal is whether the line described in the petition for the proposed ditch is the best route for the improvement. State, ex rel. Union P. R. Co., v. Colfax County, 51 Neb. 28 (70 N. W. 500).

6. (1900.) The provisions of section 4, article I, chapter 89, Compiled Statutes, relating to drainage of swamp lands, must be strictly complied with before a county board can acquire jurisdiction to establish and construct a drain thereunder; and a bond that fails to comply with the provisions of said section 4 is void, and confers no jurisdic tion upon the board to act, although such bond may be a good common-law bond. Casey v. Burt County, 59 Neb. 624 (81 N. W. 851)..

6a. (1908.) The establishment of the boundaries of a proposed drainage district is prima facie evidence that the county com missioners proceeded regularly in the establishment thereof and that all conditions precedent have been complied with. State, ex rel. Harris, v. Hanson, 80 Neb. 724 (115 N. W. 294).

Petition.

7. (1901.) A petition which describes with certainty the point of beginning of a drainage ditch and the direction in which the same is to run, giving the sections through which it passes, and the place where terminating, and providing that the line may vary from a straight line to avoid improvements and take advantage of the ground, but not more than 160 rods, is a sufficient compliance with the provisions of the statute to give the board jurisdiction to act in respect to the same. Dodge County v. Acom, 61 Neb. 376 (85 N. W. 292).

Submission of question to popular vote.

7a. (1908.) Section 22 of the bill of rights (Const., art. I), providing that "all elections shall be free, and there shall be no hindrance or impediment of the right of a qualified voter to exercise the elective franchise," does not apply to an election upon the formation of a drainage district, nor one for the election of officers therefor. State, ex rel. Harris, v. Hanson, 80 Neb. 724 (115 N. W. 294).

7b. (1908.) After the county board has fixed the boundaries of a district the reclamation or protection of which would be of

public utility, it is competent for the legislature to permit the property owners within the proposed district to determine by vote whether or not they will avail themselves of the benefits of the act, and the provisions permitting none but property owners to vote, and authorizing each owner of real estate to cast a vote for every acre of land or town lot which he owns within the proposed district, and permitting non-resident owners and foreign corporations owning real estate therein to vote upon the question of organization and for the officers of the district, are not unlawful, nor does such election call for the exercise of the elective franchise secured to all electors by section 22 of the bill of rights. State, ex rel. Harris, v. Hanson, 80 Neb. 738 (117 N. W. 412). Hearing and determination of questions.

8. (1895.) Where a petition is filed for the construction of a county ditch, and the county commissioners on the same day adjourned and, without any special session being called, two of the members met a few days later and ordered the proposed ditch constructed, and special assessment levied for that purpose, such proceedings are void and of no effect. Morris v. Merrell, 44 Neb. 423 (62 N. W. 865).

9. (1901.) Where the record shows that a county board adjourned its sitting at the court house, and went in a body to view the proposed ditch and that they made such view, and afterwards resumed their sitting, such act is a compliance with the statute, and the view made will be regarded as the act of the board and not of individuals. Dodge County v. Acom, 61 Neb. 376 (85 N. W. 292).

10. (1907.) Whether a drainage ditch proposed to be constructed pursuant to article I, chapter 89, Compiled Statutes 1905, will be conducive to the public health, convenience or welfare, or whether the route thereof is practicable, are questions of gov ernmental or administrative policy, and are not of judicial cognizance, and jurisdiction over them by appeal or otherwise cannot be conferred upon the courts by statute. Tyson v. Washington County, 78 Neb. 211 (110 N. W. 634).

10a. (1908.) Chapter 153, laws 1907, provides that, "whenever it will be conducive to the public health, convenience or welfare either to drain any land which will be improved by drainage, or to build or con

*

struct any dyke or levee to prevent overflow by water, a drainage district may be formed," the boundaries of which are to be fixed by the county board upon the filing of a petition by interested property owners, and providing that the county board shall fix the boundaries "with a view to promot ing the interest of said drainage district, if formed, and with a view to doing justice and equity to all persons." Held, That it is a necessary inference from the language used that the board shall determine the putlic utility of the proposed district, and that it is not the imperative duty of the board to fix the boundaries if the reclamation and inprovement of the district would not promote the public health, convenience or welfare. State, ex rel. Harris, v. Hanson, 80 Neb. 733 (117 N. W. 412).

Effect of irregularities.

11. (1891.) Where the county board has jurisdiction, irregularities in the proceed ings will not render the assessment void. Darst v. Griffin, 31 Neb. 668 (48 N. W. 8191.

12. (1901.) Where, in pro^eedings under the provisions of article I, chapter 89, Copiled Statutes 1899, for the establishment of a drainage ditch, a county board acquires jurisdiction over the subject-matter under consideration, any mere irregularity or war of exact compliance with all of the statutory provisions will be deemed insufficient to ren der void the whole proceedings taken re garding such matters. Dodge County r Acom, 61 Neb. 376 (85 N. W. 292).

13. (1901.) An irregularity in not a portioning and reporting the number of lireal feet and cubic yards to each lot or tras of land according to benefits, is a harmless error, since the parties complaining made no effort to bid on the work of construction Dodge County v. Acom, 61 Neb. 376 (85 N W. 292).

14. (1305.) When a person files a clair for damages to his premises caused by the location of a proposed drainage ditch, he thereby waives objection to any irregularities in the proceedings to establish the same Gutscher v. Washington County. 74 Neb. 794 (105 N. W. 548).

14a. (1907.) In a proceeding to estab lish a drainage ditch, if the cornty beard possesses jurisdiction and authority to at in the premises, injunction will not lie on account of mere irregularities in the extr cise of the powers conferred. Campbell e. Youngson, 80 Neb. 322 (114 N. W. 415).

Reconstruction of insufficient drain.

15. (1904.) Where a ditch constructed jointly by two counties has proved insufficient to drain properly the lands it was intended to benefit, the county board of one of the counties has the, power to adopt a new system of drains of which the old ditch, straightened, widened, altered or deepened, shall form a part, and assess the cost of location and construction upon the lands benefited, upon the proper proceedings for that purpose being taken; and the fact that prior to the adoption of the new scheme of drainage it had failed to clean out the old ditch for several years is immaterial. Morris v. Washington County, 72 Neb. 174 (100 N. W. 144).

Location.

16. (1901.) Where an engineer is appointed by the board, makes a final survey, sets grade stakes, notes intersections, and makes a profile and plat, fixes the dimensions and slopes of the banks, etc., and his report is confirmed by the board, the action taken will be deemed to be that of the board and in compliance with the statute. The fact that the line as finally established varies from that described in the petition, but for a less distance than is allowed by the petition and by statute, does not affect the validity of such proceedings. Dodge County v. Acom. 61 Neb. 376 (85 N. W. 292).

Proceedings for construction.

17. (1901.) Where the engineer divided the proposed ditch into working stations, and showed in each the distance, and the number of cubic feet to be removed, together with the cost of removal, at the estimate upon which the total cost is arrived at, this, with the report of the assessment to be levied on each parcel or tract of land for special benefits, imparts all the information that would be necessary in case of an apportionment of the number of lineal feet and cubic yards to each lot or tract of land according to the benefits which will result to each from the improvement, and is a sufficient compliance with the provisions of the statute in that respect. Dodge County v. Acom, 61 Neb. 376 (85 N. W. 292).

Contracts for construction.

18. (1894.) The provision of section 20, chapter 89, Compiled Statutes, for the reletting of contracts where contractors for drainage ditches have failed to complete their work within the time specified, is de

signed for the benefit of the persons whose property is chargeable with such improvements, and is not the exclusive method of determining the amount of damage on account of such failure. McDonald & Penfield v. Dodge County, 41 Neb. 905 (60 N. W. 366).

19. (1894.) An engineer, who examined the work two months after it was abandoned by the contractors and found the original stakes showing the depth of the ditch and was able to verify his estimate from such stakes, held competent to testify to the cost of completing such work in accordance with the contract. McDonald & Penfield v. Dodge County, 41 Neb. 905 (60 N. W. 366).

20. (1905.) A contract which has never been begun is a contract "not completed within the time specified," under the provisions of section 20, article I, chapter 89, Compiled Statutes 1903, providing for the reletting of such contracts. Gutschow v. Washington County, 74 Neb. 378 (104 N. W. 602).

21. (1905.) The fact that the person to whom a contract is let under the provision of section i, article I, chapter 89, Compiled Statutes 1903, requiring the contract to be let to the "lowest responsible bidder," is the only bidder, does not render the contract illegal, in the absence of fraud or collusion, or of any showing that the price is excessive or unreasonable. Gutschow v. Washington County, 74 Neb. 378 (104 N. W. 602).

22. (1965.) A bid which proposes "to construct, excavate and complete by work ing sections" at a fixed price per cubic yard of earth responds to a notice that required bids to be made "by each working section,” since the proposal means at the same price per yard for each working section or for the whole work. Gutschow v. Washington County, 74 Neb. 378 (104 N. W. 602).

Mandamus to compel construction.

23. (1897.) A mandamus will not issue to a county board to compel the construction of a drainage ditch under article I, chapter 89, Compiled Statutes, where the relator is not shown to be interested in the improvement, independent of that which he has in common with the public at large. Van Horn v. State, ex rel. Allen, 51 Neb. 232 (70 N. W. 941).

Payment from general fund.

24. (1898.) The provisions of article I, chapter 89, Compiled Statutes, examined,

25. (1895.) The owner of land appropriated by a county for a drainage ditch is entitled to recover the value of the land taken and any damage to the land not appropriated less special benefits to the latter. Martin v. Fillmore County, 44 Neb. 719 (62 N. W. 863).

26. (1895.) Where a petition against a county for damages alleges that a county ditch has been constructed through and across plaintiff's land, and the county in its answer admits that fact without pleading payment, a verdict for defendant is contrary to law. Martin v. Fillmore County, 44 Neb. 719 (62 N. W. 863).

27. (1903.) A county is not liable to landowners for injuries caused by the discharge of surface water from ditches constructed by the county authorities diverting such water from its natural course. Stocker v. Nemaha County, 4 Unof. 230 (93 N. W. 721).

Set-off of special benefits.

28. (1905.) Where an action is brought to recover damages occasioned by the construction of a drainage ditch, and it appears that the special benefits received by any particular tract of land exceed that portion of the cost of the ditch apportioned to it, the special benefits in excess of the cost may be set off against consequential damages. Gutschow v. Washington County, 74 Neb. 800 (107 N. W. 127).

29. (1905.) Where an assessment to the amount of the special benefits he has received has already been assessed against the owner of lands over which a drainage ditch is proposed to be constructed, the value of such special benefits should not be deducted from any damages accruing to the land not actually taken for the construction of the proposed improvement. Gutschow v. Washington County, 74 Neb. 794 (105 N. W. 548).

II. ASSESSMENTS AND SPECIAL

TAXES.

Constitutional and statutory provisions.

30. (1891.) The provisions of section 6, article IX of the constitution, that "the leg. islature may vest the corporate authority of cities, towns and villages, with power to make local improvements by special assess ments or by special taxation of the property benefited," do not prohibit the legislature from conferring the power to make local im provements by special assessment or taxa tion of property benefited. Darst v. Grifin, 31 Neb. 668 (48 N. W. 819).

31. (1901.) The statute providing for the establishment of drainage ditches is not in violation of any of the provisions of sections 3, 13, 21, or 24 of article I of the constitution. Dodge County v. Acom. 61 Neb. 376 (85 N. W. 292).

32. 1904.) The provisions of the drainage law, sections 1-28, article I, chapter 8, Compiled Statutes, confer power upon the county board to provide means for raising a fund from which to compensate landown ers whose property has been taken or damaged in the construction of the proposed im provement, and its provisions do not violate section 21, article I of the constitution, providing that the property of no person shall be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation therefor. Morris v. Washington County, 72 Neb. 174 (100 N. W. 144). Estoppel or waiver as to objections.

33. (1887.) A party objecting to the costruction of a proposed ditch should act with reasonable promptness in urging his objection, and should not wait until the completion of the improvement before alleging an entire want of authority to make the same. Dakota County v. Cheney, 22 Ned. 437 (35 N. W. 211).

34. (1891.) A party who sees a publle improvement being carried on calculated to benefit his property, cannot wait until it is completed and the expenditure has been made and his property received the benefit before proceeding to avoid the tax, but must, as a condition of relief by injunction, do equity by paying the amount thereof justly chargeable against such property. Darst r. Griffin, 31 Neb. 668 (48 N. W. 819). Benefit to property.

35. (1901.) In determining special bene fits accruing to land by reason of the endstruction of a drainage ditch, it is proper

to take into consideration whatever will come to the land from the drain to make it more valuable for tillage, or more desirable as a place of residence, or more valuable in the general market, the true and final test being what will be the influence of the proposed improvement on the market value of the property. Dodge County v. Acom, 61 Neb. 376 (85 N. W. 292).

36. (1904.) Assessments upon private property to defray the cost of local improvements are void if in excess of the benefits conferred. Neal v. Vansickle, 72 Neb. 105 (100 N. W. 200).

Proceedings for assessment.

37. (1901.) Evidence examined, and held to support the finding and order of the county board levying special assessments for benefits received by reason of the construction of a drainage ditch. Dodge County v. Acom, 61 Neb. 376 (85 N. W. 292).

38. (1904.) The county board, in fixing the assessments to pay for the construction of a drainage ditch, under the provisions of article I, chapter 89, Compiled Statutes, 1899, acts judicially. Dodge County v. Acom, 72 Neb. 71 (100 N. W. 136).

39. (1904.) Assessments upon private property to defray the cost of local improvements are void if levied without notice to persons upon whose property they are imposed, or affording them an opportunity to be heard. Neal v. Vansickle, 72 Neb. 105 (100 N. W. 200).

Review, correction or setting aside of as

regularities, the court, as a condition of granting relief, may require the property owner to do equity by paying the amount which his property is benefited by the aprovement. Darst v. Griffin, 31 Neb. 668 (48 N. W. 819).

41. (1901.) The provisions of section 28, to the effect that assessments shall not be set aside in consequence of any error or irregularity committed or appearing in any of the proceedings, must be given the force and effect fairly justified by the language used when applied to errors, irregularities or non-compliance with the strict letter of every provision of the statute not going to the question of jurisdiction. Dodge County v. Acom, 61 Neb. 376 (82 N. W. 292).

42. (1904.) From the judgment and orders of the county board, fixing assessments to pay for a drainage ditch, error will lie to the district court, and the judgment of that court may be reviewed on such proceedings in the supreme court. Dodge County v. Acom, 72 Neb. 71 (100 N. W. 136).

43. (1904.) On a petition in error from the judgment of the county board in a proceeding to fix assessments for the construction of a drainage ditch, its findings and orders are entitled to the same weight as the verdict of a jury, or the findings and judgment of a court, and will not be reversed or set aside unless it appears that the evidence is insufficient to sustain them and they are clearly wrong. Dodge County v. Acom, 72 Neb. 71 (100 N. W. 136).

Sale of intoxicating liquors.

See, also, Intoxicating Liquors, §§ 231-236. 1. (1879.) The general law relating to licensing the sale of intoxicating liquors at retail is general and applies to all persons including druggists. Brown v. State, 9 Neb. 189 (2 N. W. 214).

2. (1885.) A druggist without a permit is absolutely prohibited from selling intoxicating liquors upon any pretext. Such druggist with a permit is equally prohibited from selling except in the best of faith, and strictly for the purposes specified by law. Warrick v. Rounds, 17 Neb. 411 (23 N. W. 785).

3. (1832.) Druggists having permits for

the sale of liquors for medical, mechanical, chemical, or sacramental purposes are exempted from the operation of chapter 50 of Compiled Statutes, making it unlawful - to keep intoxicating liquors for the purpose of sale without a license. State v. Cloyd, 34 Neb. 600 (52 N. W. 579).

4. (1897.) The prohibiting features of the statute in regard to the sale of intoxicating liquors apply to druggists. Wilson v. Parrish, 52 Neb. 6 (71 N. W. 1010).

Liability for negligence.

5. (1907.) One who has suffered a direct injury by the unlawful or criminal act of another may maintain an action for the recovery of the damages sustained. McKib