cannot be legally predicated upon future action of the public authorities or future legislation; that property will be held not to be benefited in case subsequent work is required for which no provision is made; that in such proceedings it cannot be presumed that the public authorities will take certain action so that the property may be benefited in the future; that the property owner is entitled to a positive provision "that the action will be taken.” (Village of River Forest v. Cummings, 261 Ill. 228; City of Chicago v. Kemp, 240 id. 56; City of Waukegan v. Burnett, 234 id. 460; Lindblad v. Town of Normal, 224 id. 362; Gordon v. City of Chicago, 201 id. 623; Mason v. City of Chicago, 178 id. 499; Gray v. Town of Cicero, 177 id. 459; Title Guarantee and Trust Co. v. City of Chicago, 162 id. 505; Washington Ice Co. v. City of Chicago, 147 id. 327; Edwards v. City of Chicago, 140 id. 440; Hutt v. City of Chicago, 132 id. 352.) Benefits depending on future action by municipal or other legislative authority are too speculative and uncertain, under these decisions, to authorize the levying of a special assessment upon property. Before the courts are justified in entering judgments assessing property for benefits for proposed improvements, such definite, positive action must be taken by the public authorities that property owners are plainly authorized to enforce, by legal proceedings, the construction of such improvements. Obviously, from what has already been stated, no such definite action has been taken by the public authorities here,—no action under which appellants could enforce in the courts the construction of the outlet for the appellee district. On this record the North Alexander County Drainage District is under no legal obligation to construct said outlet ditch; neither has the appellee taken any definite action for the construction of said outlet. The authorities cited by counsel for appellee on this question, such as Badger v. Inlet Drainage District, 141 Ill. 540, People v. Welch, 252 id. 167, and Bainum v. Randolph Drainage District, 257 id. 486, are not in point on this question. Counsel for appellee argue that the provisions of an act of the legislature as to the connection of ditches between adjoining districts, approved June 28, 1913, (Laws of 1913, p. 271,) authorized the entering of the judgment by the court below. No attempt has been made to point out any provisions of this act, and we have found none, which apply to the conditions presented by this record. Counsel for appellee further insist that appellants are in no way injured, because the bonds will not be issued or the contract let for the work of this district until the contract shall be let for the construction of the outlet ditch. The judgment in this case provided that the amount of the assessments against appellants' lands should bear interest at the rate of six per cent from the date of the judgment until paid. Other questions are raised in the briefs which we deem it unnecessary to consider or decide, as the judgment must be reversed for reasons already stated. The judgment of the county court is reversed and the cause remanded. Reversed and remanded. INDEX. ACCOUNT STATED. whether there was an account stated is a mixed question ACTIONS AND DEFENSES. outstanding title acquired by one co-tenant inures to bene- when unreasonable delay will bar relief in equity.. PAGE. 198 59 193 212 212 the fact that sheriff's deed has been made does not neces- 389 ... 523 523 563 when foreign corporation may bring suit in Illinois...... 610 ADVERSE POSSESSION. outstanding title acquired by one co-tenant inures to the 59 APPEALS AND ERRORS. PAGE. 19 when the question of the location of a highway does not when action of trial court in admitting evidence in crimi- 121 124 extent to which the Supreme Court may go in examining 198 198 whether there was an account stated is a mixed question .. 198 when permitting witness to answer question in improper 198 question whether there is any proof that the negligence 238 257 414 party need not wait until after final judgment before pre- 425 what is a proper method of bringing rules of municipal 425 when refusal to admit competent evidence in criminal case 435 when constitutionality of a statute is not involved.. 533 633 ARSON. what is a sufficient averment of ownership of building in ASSAULT.-See CRIMINAL LAW. ATTORNEYS AT LAW. what constitutes unprofessional conduct by attorney-when 244 586 |