DRAINAGE DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS. 31 
The increase in value due solely to the drainage improvement is the 
measure of the benefit as in farm assessments. 
We find such assessments as low as 50 cents per lot, although 
they necessarily vary greatly. It would seem poor practice to 
include property within the assessment district which will not be 
benefited in a larger amount than 50 cents, for the cost of collecting 
and accounting might be more than the assessment, and furthermore, 
the inclusion of any large number of such parties adds greatly to 
the cost of organization proceedings. It is impossible to draw a 
boundary line around a district in such a way that all of the land? 
benefited will lie inside and all those not benefited will be excluded, 
for special benefits radiate outward, gradually becoming rarified to 
general benefits to the community at large. Hence district bound- 
aries should lie so drawn as to exclude special benefits that would 
not repay the cost of collection. 
Xo rule can be laid down as to assessments against municipalities, 
because the proper method depends on the statutes and practice in 
the several States, while the amount of the assessment depends on 
the circumstances in each case. 
An interesting ease is found in Trigg. Sheriff, et al.. v. Henderson 
Cotton Mills (Ky. 1917), 197 S. W. 1074. The plaintiff's land 
assessed by the drainage district lay outside a city which was also 
assessed and the limits of the city were later extended so that they 
included the plaintiff's property : the drainage commissioner- levied 
a maintenance tax upon the property and upon the city in propor- 
tion to their original assessments, and the plaintiff brought suit 
against the district, claiming that he was doubly assessed, since he 
was required to pay his proportionate part of the city's a^ses-ment as 
well as the assessment which had been laid against his property in- 
dividually. The court held that there was no double taxation, since — 
* * * one tax was imposed by the board of drainage commissioners be- 
cause of special benefits to the property. The other tax was imposed by the 
city itself, not because of any special benefits to the property taxed, but to 
discharge its statutory obligation to contribute toward the maintenance of the 
ditch, because of creneral benefits resulting to the city as a whole and enjoyed 
alike by all its citizens. When the limits of the city were extended so as to 
include the property of plaintiffs, the special benefits resulting to their property 
from the construction and maintenance of the ditch were not extinguished or 
diminished, but continued unimpaired. The only effect of the annexation was 
to make the property subject to taxation by the city for its proportion of all 
municipal indebtedness then existing or subsequently contracted (authorities 
cited. * * *). Thereupon the property in question stood in precisely the 
same attitude toward the tax levied by the city for the purpose of discharging 
its liability to contribute to the maintenance of the ditch, as other property in 
the city not specially benefited by the improvement. It will thus be seen that 
the liability of the property to pay the two taxes grows out of separate and 
distinct obligations: the one to pay the special benefits, the other to pay its 
part of the general benefits resulting to the city as a whole. Hence the pay- 
ment of the tax levied by the city is no parr of the price payable for the 
special benefits resulting from the construction and maintenance of the im- 
provement, and the imposition of the two taxes can not be regarded as double 
taxation. 
It is the opinion of the writer, although without support in the 
reported decision, that while there are two kinds of benefits present 
in this case it is misleading to call them "special'' and "general." 
The land was assessed for a special benefit, as was the city, since 
assessments can not be levied on general benefits. The tax levied 
