their rights are the subject of attack.1042 The necessity for accurate descriptions and the reasons for the rules given above are apparent.1 t.1043 Irregularities, however, in proceedings under drain In re Central Irr. Dist., 117 Cal. 382, 49 Pac. 354; Goodrich v. Stangland, 155 Ind. 279, 58 N. E. 148. Under Burns' Rev. St. 1894, § 5654, a notice of the filing of the petition for the construction of a drain is required. The form and contents are also prescribed. * 1042 Fallbrook Irr. Dist. v. Brad- various tracts of land is invalid as ley, 164 U. S. 112. Upon the hear- to any tract it is invalid as to all. ing of such petition after due no- In the original organization the tertice, persons interested in the pro- ritorial boundaries of the district posed improvement may appear be- were given and fixed. The tracts of fore the board of supervisors of land annexed, as set out in the pleas, the county and contest the facts on are scattered pieces adjoining the which the petition is based and the original boundary, lying in nine further question of benefit to any different sections, many of them particular land included in the de- not connected in any way with the scription of the proposed district. others. It is undoubtedly true that where a district is organized it must be organized as a unit, and the proceeding must be valid as a whole. * But in this case the relation of the parties to each other and the district is entirely different. The rights of each one depend solely upon his individual relation with 1043 People v. Bug River Special the district. If any one of them by Drainage Dist. Com'rs, 189 Ill. 55, 59 his voluntary act, has connected his N. E. 605. An order is not neces- lands with the district, the law sarily defective only as to such lands deems him as having voluntarily apinsufficiently described. Where this plied to have said lands included, is the point at issue the court say: and the commissioners may annex, "A ground of special demurrer to classify and assess them. If he the pleas is, that in each of them makes such an application, they a list of the lands annexed is given, have jurisdiction over him and his with the names of the owners and lands regardless of notice to or ju an attempted description, and that risdiction over any other person. a few of these tracts are so insuf- The annexation is several as to each ficiently described that they cannot land owner, although many tracts be located. There are some twenty may be annexed at the same time. different tracts here listed, and a The question is whether the individsmall fraction of them are described ual and separate action of the ownmerely as a part of a certain forty er has brought a particular tract acre tract, with no way to ascertain of land within the jurisdiction of what part it is. In those cases the the commissioners. One Owner land is not described so as to be ca- may dispute the fact of having pable of identification and it is made the connection and applicaclaimed that the whole order of an- tion contemplated by the statute nexation is therefore void, and the and his rights may depend upon the plea is insufficient. The argument existence of such fact. As to anis that if the order annexing these other, the attempted annexation may age laws usually cannot be attacked collaterally.1044 A description of lands in such a petition or in any of the proceedings in connection with the establishment of a district or levying the assessment on property need be only so sufficient and definite that the boundaries can be ascertained or the identity of the piece can be established by a competent surveyor or by reference to other tracts or parcels.1045 In one case the ruling was made that be void because the land cannot be identified but there is no joint relation between the owners. We do not think that one owner can object for another or insist that the commissioners shall have jurisdiction over every other person whose lands they may undertake to annex to the district. The pleas are not subject to the objection raised by the special demurrer." People v. Barnes, 193 Ill. 620; Carr v. State, 103 Ind. 548, and Heick v. Voight, 110 Ind. 279. But a petition is sufficient where its averments are fairly and reasonably specific. dianapolis & C. Gravel Road Co. v. State, 105 Ind. 37; McMullen v. State, 105 Ind. 334; Sunier v. Miller, 105 Ind. 393; Beals v. James, 173 Mass. 591, 54 N. E. 245; Scholtz v. Smith, 119 Mich. 634, 78 N. W. 668; Benjamin v. Hiler, 63 N. J. Law, 145, 47 Atl. 24; Kelly v. Dolan, 67 N. J. Law, 90, 50 Atl. 453. 1045 People v. Barnes, 193 III. 620; Milligan V. State, 60 Ind. 206; Wright v. Wilson, 95 Ind. 408; Richard v. Cypremort Drainage Dist., 107 La. 657. "The plaintiff's contention is, that although as he concedes, the tax payers, by voting the tax countenanced the system of drainage advertised as before mentioned, and sanctioned to some extent at least, the method followed by the use of a map to indicate lines, yet that this is not to be considered in the light of a ratification, for the statute contemplates a form to be followed from which there should not be any material deviation; that the manner of opening the drains had not been matured, nor the location of the drain fixed, as required by vote. As a condition precedent, it was necessary to fix the limits. We think this was done to an extent sufficient to make all parties concerned aware of the lines as well as of the location of the drains; that this information was given by the ordinance, the advertisements and 1044 People v. Reclamation Dist. No. 556, 130 Cal. 607, 63 Pac. 27. One is precluded from controverting the fact of a de facto organization by the rule covering collateral attack. Osborn v. People, 103 Ill. 224; Blake v. People, 109 Ill. 504; Morrell v. Union Drainage Dist. No. 1, 118 Ill. 139; Evans v. Lewis, 121 Ill. 478; People v. Jones, 137 Ill. 35. But see the case of Payson v. People, 175 Ill. 267, as holding that in a proceed ing to collect a delinquent special assessment, a collateral attack may be made upon the legality of the organization of the drainage district. Cochran v. White, 151 Ind. 435, 51 N. E. 723; Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. v. Jackson County Com'rs, 156 Ind. 260, 58 N. E. 837, 59 N. E. 856; Cauldwell v. Curry, 93 Ind. 363; Young v. Wells, 97 Ind. 410; In the maps. Besides the evidence dis the description of the lands affected need only be so sufficiently accurate as to enable the auditor to describe them on the duplicate tax lists.1046 The hearing upon such petition should be public, 1047 and notice is generally required to be served upon all those interested who may be affected by the construction of the proposed drainage system or drain, or the establishment of the drainage district. 1048 closes that it was impossible to describe the location and extent of the drain in a printed ballot, but that they were minutely described on a map made by the secretary of the drainage board who is a surveyor by profession. This is sufficient compliance with the law as relates to description of location of districts and drains. We are warrant ed in concluding that every voter was notified of the location of the canal, the drains to it, and of the limits of the district. In leaving the subject we must say that while there was not a map-like distinctness of trace in the ordinance in question of the police jury, there is sufficient description of the district to sustain the boundaries as described." Dodge County v. Acom, 61 Neb. 376, 85 N. W. 292. 1046 Craig v. People, 188 Ill. 416, 58 N. E. 1000; Spahr v. Schofield, 66 Ind. 168. 1047 Land Owners v. People, 113 Ill. 296; Campbell v. Dwiggins, 83 Ind. 473; Tyler v. State, 83 Ind. 563. 1048 In re Central Irr. Dist., 117 Cal. 382, 49 Pac. 354. A defective notice cannot be cured by proof of actual knowledge on the part of the person whose interests are affected. See, as to manner and length of publication, People v. Reclamation Dist. No. 136, 121 Cal. 522; Reclamation Dist. No. 537 v. Burger, 122 Cal. 442. Craig v. People, 188 III. 416, 58 N. E. 1000; Payson v. People, 175 Ill. 267; Sanner v. Union Drainage Dist., 175 Ill. 575; Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v Hohenshell, 193 Ill. 159; People v. Barnes, 193 Ill. 620; Osborn v. Maxinkuckee Lake Ice Co., 154 Ind. 101, 56 N. E. 33; Wright v. Wilson, 95 Ind. 408. This case also holds that a voluntary appearance will not dispense with statutory notice. Jackson v. State, 103 Ind. 250; Williams v. Stevenson, 103 Ind. 243. Oral proof of posting of notices is admissible. Ind. 380; Ind. 504; 121. A landowner insufficiently served but having knowledge of the proceedings and making no objection will be estopped to urge such irregularities. Carr v. Boone, 108 Ind. 241; Kennedy v. State, 109 Ind. 236; Dickinson v. Van Wormer, 39 Mich. 141; People v. Ruthruff, 40 Mich. 175; Willcheck v. Edwards, 42 Mich. 105; Bixby v. Goss, 54 Mich. 551. A failure to give notice either actual or constructive to a non-resident owner of lands is a jurisdictional error. Bettis v. Geddes, 54 Mich. 608; Corey v. Jackson Probate Judge, 56 Mich. 524; Campau v. Charbeneau, 105 Mich. 422; Hauser v. Burbank, 117 Mich. 642, 463; Curran v. Sibley County, 47 Minn. 313. The publication of a notice, for three successive weeks, of the Meranda v. Spurlin, 100 Brosemer v. Kelsey, 106 Peters v. Griffee, 108 Ind. § 449. The appointment of commissioners or viewers. Upon the filing of a proper petition, the law may provide that upon a determination by the proper tribunal of the public necessity for the drain or ditch, commissioners or viewers shall be appointed who shall qualify1049 and proceed to examine the route of the proposed improvement and determine the damages and benefits to be suffered or derived by its establishment. 1050 Their report in these respects may be subject to exception and appeal by those having the right who may deem themselves aggrieved. 1051 All these proceedings are usually determined and time set by the county board for the hearing of a petition for the opening of a ditch as required by Laws 1887, c. 97, § 8, is jurisdictional. Eaton v. St. Charles County, 8 Mo. App. 177; Scattergood v. Lord, 26 N. J. Law (2 Dutch.) 140. The same notice is necessary in altering a ditch as required upon its original construction. Sessions v. Crunkilton, 20 Ohio St. 349; Baltimore & O. & C. R. Co. v. Wagner, 43 Ohio St. 75; Town of Muskego v. Drainage Com'rs, 78 Wis. 40. A publication of an order prescribing the notice to be given of the time and place of hearing of a petition in drainage proceedings is a substantial compliance with the statute when the order contains all the essentials of a valid notice. 1049 Trigger v. Drainage Dist. No. 1, 193 Ill. 230; People v. Gary, 196 Ill. 310; State v. Findley, 67 Wis. 86. Such commissioners should not only qualify but should also be disinterested persons. Lower Kings River Reclamation Dist. v. Phillips, 108 Cal. 306; Kellogg v. Price, 42 Ind. 360; High v. Big Creek Ditching Ass'n, 44 Ind. 356. A person whose sister-in-law, niece and nephew own land along the line of a pro posed ditch is not a disinterested party. Rogers v. Venis, 137 Ind. 221. The fact that a person is engaged in the business of making tile does not disqualify him. In re Ryers, 72 N. Y. 1. The county judge in drainage proceedings under New York Laws 1869, c. 888, is not disqualified from appointing drainage commissioners because of his ownership of lands affected by the proceedings. Olmsted v. Dennis, 77 N. Y. 378; Durden v. Simmons, 84 N. C. 555. 1050 Young America Drainage Com'rs v. Shiloh Drainage Com'rs, 91 Ill. App. 241; McCaleb v. Coon Run Drainage & Levee Dist., 190 Ill. 549; Heffner v. Cass & Morgan Counties, 193 Ill. 439, 58 L. R. A. 353. Oliver v. Monona County, 117 Iowa, 43, 90 N. W. 510. To justify an assessment upon lands benefited, it is only necessary to show that the public health of the district will be promoted by the construction of the drain. The meaning of the word benefit is not confined to the idea that the lands of particular owners must be rendered more valuable. Peck v. Watros, 30 Ohio St. 590. 1051 In re Bradley, 108 Iowa, 476, 79 N. W. 280; Oliver v. Monona controlled by specific requirements of local laws. The cases cited in the notes discuss the propositions from the standpoint of general laws. 1052 Proceedings having for their purpose the appointment of commissioners and the ascertainment of damages and benefits accruing to private property owners are based upon the power of eminent domain. One of the essentials of a legal exercise of this power is the giving of notice to parties whose rights or interests may be affected.1053 Statutory provisions are usually found fixing the form of such notice1054 and the manner and time County, 117 Iowa, 43, 90 N. W. 510. The right of appeal is a privilege which can be legally withdrawn at any time. Smith v. Smith, 97 Ind. 273; De Gravelle v. Iberia & St. M. Drainage Dist., 104 La. 703, 29 So. 302. The validity of such proceedings should be attacked on specific grounds; general charges of irregularity will not suffice. People v. Wasson, 64 N. Y. 167. Those aggrieved have not, as a general rule, the right to a trial by jury. See Cairo & F. R. Co. v. Trout, 32 Ark. 17; Koppikus v. State Capitol Com'rs, 16 Cal. 248; People v. Blake, 19 Cal. 579; White man's Ex'x v. Wilmington & S. R. Co., 2 Har. (Del.) 514; Dronberger v. Reed, 11 Ind. 420; People v. Michigan S. R. Co., 3 Mich. 497. 1052 In re Bradley, 108 Iowa, 476. A drainage application is a general proceeding in which a jury cannot be allowed. Hackett v. Brown, 128 Mich. 141, 87 N. W. 102. The minutes of the survey need not be signed by the surveyor. Dodge County v. Acom, 61 Neb. 376, 85 N. W. 292. The presumption is always in favor of the correctness and legality of the proceedings taken. 1053 Bixby v. Goss, 54 Mich. 551. "Plaintiff is a nonresident of the state, and is nowhere named in the proceedings. Her husband is nam ed, however, and it is assumed that he is owner of a quarter section of land, which includes the land owned by the plaintiff. The assessment of compensation for land taken, and also of the tax laid for benefits, is made to the husband. Plaintiff, in the affidavit for certiorari, says that she had no notice, actual or constructive, of any of the proceedings while they were pending, and the record does not show that any was given. This being the case, the proceedings as to this plaintiff were absolutely void. The failure to give notice, so that the parties concerned may have an opportunity to be heard in the proceedings is not to be deemed a mere error or informality but as depriving the commissioner of jurisdiction to take further steps." Hackett v. Brown, 128 Mich. 141, 87 N. W. 102. Where the proceedings were properly pending as against a landowner, his subsequent purchaser cannot complain. Daniels v. Smith, 38 Mich. 660; Lane v. Burnap, 39 Mich. 736; Willcheck v. Edwards, 42 Mich. 105; Dunning v. Essex Tp. Drain Com'r, 44 Mich. 518. The giving of the notice required by statute may be waived. Lampson v. Ingham County Com'rs, 45 Mich. 660. 1054 Bixby v. Goss, 54 Mich. 551; |