It is not controverted by defendant in error that the rule stated is correct if the lease gave the plaintiff in error the option of extending the lease an additional term of one or more years, but it is contended that rule should not be applied in this case, and it should not be if we agreed with defendant in error as to the meaning and effect of the optional clause of the lease. As before stated, we understand the privilege or option given plaintiff in error was to extend the lease for either of the periods mentioned; that if he desired to avail himself of a longer period than one year he should have so elected during the original term. The lease contained no provision for notice of election, but necessarily he would be required to give notice of the period he elected. Not having given any notice but remaining in possession after March 1, 1915, he was deemed to have elected to extend the lease one year. After the expiration of that year he had no further right to possession under the lease, and his continued possession thereafter was as tenant from year to year.

Some reference is made to a conversation between the landlord and plaintiff in error about when the latter would give possession. The landlord testified the conversation occurred in the summer of 1915. Plaintiff in error and his son testified the conversation occurred at corn planting time in 1914. Without referring to what the testimony was, it is sufficient to say it was contradictory and was not of a character to have any weight in the decision of this case.

For the reasons stated the plaintiff in error was entitled to the statutory notice required to be given a tenant from year to year before suit could be maintained to dispossess him. No notice having been given him, the judgments of the Appellate Court and circuit court are reversed.

Judgment reversed.

(No. 13012.-Reversed and remanded.)

THE COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE FORK SPECIAL DRAINAGE DISTRICT, Appellants, vs. THE Commissioners OF HIGHWAYS OF LAKE FORK TOWNSHIP, Appellees.

Opinion filed April 21, 1920.

I. DRAINAGE meeting for classification of lands in a special drainage district need not be held within boundaries of the district. There is no provision in the Farm Drainage act requiring the meeting for the classification of lands in a special drainage district to be held within the boundaries of the district, and the preliminary steps for calling such meeting need not be taken within the district. 2. SAME--meeting for levying assessment need not be held within boundaries of special drainage district. The meeting for levying of assessments in a special drainage district need not be held within the boundaries of the district.

3. SAME-classification of lands, and not spreading of assessment, affects rights of land owners. The classification of the lands in a farm drainage district, and not the spreading of an assessment, affects the rights of land owners.

4. SAME no notice is required of time and place of meeting to levy assessments. Under the Farm Drainage act no notice is required as to the time and place of the meeting of the drainage commissioners for the levying of assessments.

5. SAME-land owners need not be personally notified of meeting to hear objections to classification. Section 60 of the Farm Drainage act does not require any other notice to land owners of the meeting to hear objections to the classification of lands than the notice by publication as therein set forth.

6. SAME when classification need not show fractional figures of proportion of assessment of public highway. The Farm Drainage act requires that the fractional figures shall be inserted in the classification showing the proportion of the assessment to be paid by any public highway or railroad, but an objection to the assessment of highways in a township that the classification does not comply with such statutory requirement is not fatal where the total assessment in the district is given with the total assessment against the highways in the township.

7. SAME-levy of assessment in special drainage district is governed by section 62 of Farm Drainage act. The method of levying an assessment in a special drainage district is not governed by section 26 of the Farm Drainage act but by section 62 of that act,

which does not require the commissioners to adopt a resolution in the form provided for in section 26.

8. SAME-action at law is only remedy to collect unpaid assessment against highways. The only remedy to collect an unpaid assessment against public highways in a farm drainage district is to obtain a judgment against the commissioners in an action at law, and, if not paid, to follow it up with mandamus, as no judgment and order of sale of the highways can be had on application of the county collector.

9. SAME highway commissioners are entitled to a hearing on question whether assessment exceeds benefits. In an action at law to collect an unpaid drainage assessment against highways the defendant highway commissioners are entitled to a hearing on the question whether the assessment exceeds the benefits.

10. SAME-proof that highways receive some benefit does not estop highway commissioners to prove assessment exceeds benefit. In an action against highway commissioners to collect an unpaid drainage assessment, where no appeal was taken from the order confirming the classification, the highway commissioners are estopped to deny that the highways receive some benefit; but proof that they receive some benefit does not preclude the commissioners from proving that the assessment exceeds the benefit.

II. APPEALS ANd errors—all issues are before Supreme Court when cause is certified from Appellate Court. Where a cause is certified to the Supreme Court from the Appellate Court, the Supreme Court is not confined to the point upon which the cause is certified but all the issues involved in the case are before it for consideration.

APPEAL from the Appellate Court for the Third District;-heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Logan county; the Hon. T. M. HARRIS, Judge, presiding.

GEORGE SMITH, and COVEY & WOODS, for appellants.

BEACH & TRAPP, for appellees.

Mr. JUSTICE CARTER delivered the opinion of the court: Appellants brought two actions in debt against appellees for the collection of certain drainage assessments levied against the highways of Lake Fork township. The first action was brought to recover assessments for the years

1909 and 1910, and afterwards a second suit was brought to recover the assessment for 1911, the total assessments for the three years amounting to $655.88. By agreement the two cases were consolidated in the circuit court and

tried as one. The jury being waived, the court found for appellees and rendered judgment against appellants for costs. An appeal was taken to the Appellate Court, where the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed. The Appellate Court granted a certificate of importance and the case is now here on appeal.

The two actions were treated as one in the Appellate Court and we shall so consider them here.

Lake Fork Special Drainage. District, embracing lands in the towns of Lake Fork, Mt. Pulaski and Elkhart, in Logan county, was organized as a special drainage district in 1890 under the provisions of section 49, etc., of the Farm Drainage act. (Hurd's Stat. 1917, p. 1132.) No question is raised as to it being thus properly organized. The court appointed three persons as the drainage commissioners of the district, to cause estimates, surveys and plats to be made in accordance with the statute. The commissioners thus appointed performed such work and reported to the court recommending that the district be finally organized, and an order was entered so finding. The lands in its boundaries, including the public highways, were classified, the classification confirmed and assessments thereafter levied by the commissioners to construct the work. In March, 1905, a petition of land owners in the district was filed praying for the enlargement of the boundaries of the district and the enlarging and deepening of the main ditch of the district to provide a necessary outlet. A hearing was thereafter had on April 10 of the same year, the prayer of the petition granted and an order made that the district be enlarged so as to include the additional lands described. The declaration in this action alleged the organization of the district as a special drainage district; that in 1906, in pursuance

of a petition of land owners in the district, the district was enlarged and the deepening of the original channel ordered, it being determined that all the lands, highways and railroads in the district would be benefited by the improvement $120,000; that this amount was $50,000 more than the estimated cost of the work, and that the highways in the town of Lake Fork would be benefited $3000. Thereafter an assessment of $70,000 was ordered levied and collected and the lands classified for that purpose. After the work had proceeded for some time it was discovered that an additional $12,000 would be required to complete it, and an additional assessment was made for that sum. Subsequently the greater portion of the assessment was divided into ten installments and bonds issued to the amount of $54,000. The commissioners of highways of Lake Fork township failed to pay the assessments for the three years already mentioned, and these actions were brought to collect them. The defendants pleaded the general issue and nul tiel record.

On the trial of the case appellants introduced in evidence the record of the proceedings in the original organization of the district, the record of the enlargement of the district and its main ditch, and of the classification and assessments. Appellees introduced, over the objection of appellants, proof that the highways of Lake Fork township were not benefited by the enlargement of the district and of the main outlet ditch. Counsel for appellees also introduced the records of the drainage commissioners to show that none of the meetings of the commissioners for classification or levying assessments were held within the physical boundaries of the district, and the testimony of one of the commissioners to the effect that no meeting of the commissioners on these matters was ever held within the district; that they were held at the office of their attorneys in Mt. Pulaski, about four miles from the boundaries of the district, or at the office of the county clerk