DRAINAGE DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS. 29 
States, and their reasoning is similar to that of the Nebraska 
Supreme Court in State ex rel. Sheffer v. Fuller, 120 N. W. 495; 
83 Xebr. 781, where the court said in part : 
Relator alleges that his land is within the limits of another proposed drain- 
age district, and that the law does not authorize or contemplate the overlapping 
of those districts so that real estate may be subject to separate assessments in 
as many distinct districts. The statute does not refer in specific terms to the 
overlapping of districts, nor does it forbid their formation. While some com- 
plications may arise in the prosecution of public improvments on land within 
two or more districts and in assessments to pay therefor, yet we are of the 
opinion that the objection male is not a serious one. Relator's land can only be 
assessed for, and to the extent of, benefits actually bestowed by virtue of the 
improvements made by any particular district. The assessment can only be 
laid after notice, and, if the levy is not supported by the facts, the landowner 
has an ample remedy by appeal to the courts wherein upon inquiry the truth 
may be ascertained and a judgment rendered that will amply protect him in 
his property rights. If his land may be improved by the construction ot 
ditches or dikes in two or more districts, he ought to pay to the limit of those 
benefits. To hold otherwise would permit the owner of a large tract of land 
included in a district which had not benefited that land to any appreciate 
extent to receive the advantage of an improvement made by another district. 
and yet escape payment therefor. 
In Illinois both the lands directly benefited and the benefited 
district as a whole may be assessed, or one may be assessed and the 
other omitted. 
There are many examples of assessments where a drainage dis- 
trict is organized within an older district for the purpose of obtain- 
ing more complete drainage. The methods of organizing and of 
apportioning assessments are, in general, identical with those re- 
quired in the original district, but the original assessments consti- 
tute a prior claim. The following extract from the Syllabus of 
Drainage Commissioners of Washington County Drainage District 
Xo. 4, v. Eastern Carolina Home and Farm Association, 81 S. E. 
947, shows how the courts regard such districts : 
Where a drainage district was organized under the laws of 1909, chapter 
442, the formation of a drainage district under the same law and Laws of 
1911, chapter 67, lying wholly within the boundaries of the existing district, 
for the purpose of benefits to accrue solely to land within the smaller dis- 
trict from its construction of laterals, the organization of such district was 
ancillary to the larger district, and valid, and its bonds issued subject to 
assessment for the principal and interest of the bonds of the larger district 
were valid. 
The converse is also true. It has been held that lands included 
in one drainage district may be included in a larger district and 
assessed if additional benefits accrue. A drainage district may also 
be included in a levee district and assessements may be imposed by 
the proper authorities in each district for benefits received. 
In Illinois, under both the farm drainage act and the levee act, sub- 
districts may be organized for more minute drainage for particular 
lands and the lands so benefited may be assessed for the costs. Such 
subdistricts are under the authority and control of the commis- 
sioners of the original main district. 
The third class of assessments in two districts is found where it is 
desired to widen, deepen, enlarge, or change the improvement in a 
drainage district, or where the original improvement has failed to 
give the desired relief. A new district must be organized because 
