...for the drainage of lands, the court pronounced this particular act unconstitutional, on the ground that it authorized the taking of private property without due process of law — a taking of private property for a private purpose without the consent of the owner. Particular...

...p. 164. It is earnestly insisted that the law is unconstitutional and void because it provides for the taking of private property without due process of law and for private purposes. A similar law was held constitutional in Towns v. Klamath County, 33 Or. 225 (53...

...opinion.1ss In the case of Miller v. Jensen124 the supreme court upheld the validity of the act of 1905128 against the objection that it authorized the taking...declared unconstitutional in that year in State v. Rockford.1S6 The court pointed out that the county drainage act had been held public in character and...

...hence are unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as being the taking of private property without due process of law and for public use without just compensation." We think that such contentions are without merit. In Brushaber...

...owner of the water-power created by the improvements, that act was unconstitutional and void, as taking private property without due process of law and for a private purpose. Varick v. Smith, 5 Paige, 145 ; 9 id. 547 ; Smith v. Rochester, 92 NY 463 ; Cooper v. Williams, 4 Ohio,...