Board of Com'rs of Delaware County v. Briggs, 1--1074A164
Decision Date | 20 January 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 1--1074A164,1--1074A164 |
Citation | 167 Ind.App. 96,340 N.E.2d 373 |
Parties | BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF DELAWARE COUNTY, Appellant (Defendant below), v. Bruce BRIGGS, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Defendant-appellant Board of Commissioners of Delaware County (County) filed a petition for rehearing asking us to review our decision in the above entitled cause, which has been reported at 337 N.E.2d 852. The bulk of the petition simply reiterates arguments that were disposed of in our original opinion, and we do not deem it necessary to discuss them further.
For the benefit of the County, we would point out that we are at a loss to see any real distinction between the fact situation in the case at bar and the facts of Campbell v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 55, 284 N.E.2d 733. The County continues to insist that a public duty was involved in this case, but the Campbell court found a private duty in that case on a fact situation strikingly similar to the one at bar. The existence of some public duty does not necessarily preclude the possibility that a private duty also exists. Our original opinion correctly sets forth the test to be applied.
The principal question that we find necessary to answer in this opinion concerns an argument raised by the County for the first time in their petition for rehearing. The County claims that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction of this case, inasmuch as Briggs failed to file notice of the claim with the Auditor of the County for its disallowance by the County Commissioners prior to commencement of his lawsuit. In Foster v. County Commissioners, Morgan County (1975), Ind.App. 325 N.E.2d 223 ( ), we held that We further held in Foster that the defense that the county there asserted by means of its motion for summary judgment was the lack of subject matter jurisdiction which cannot be waived but may be raised by the parties at any point during the action.
We now find it necessary to modify our holding in the Foster case.
The Supreme Court of this state has consistently held that the failure to file a legal claim with the County Auditor prior to filing suit against that county does not deprive the court in which suit was filed of subject-matter jurisdiction, provided that court was, as it was in the case at bar, a court of general jurisdiction with jurisdiction over the general class of such cases, namely, suits against the county. Instead, this absence of notice or claim must be raised affirmatively to defeat the jurisdiction of the court in which suit was filed.
In Bass Foundry & Mach. Works v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Parke Co., et al. (1888), 115 Ind. 234, 17 N.E. 593, the Supreme Court ruled that the filing of a claim with the Auditor need not be pleaded in the complaint, and that the absence of such claim did not involve the subject-matter jurisdiction of the trial court. The Supreme Court did state that the county claim statute requires notice, but held that the absence of such notice makes the jurisdiction of the court subject to affirmative defense, and in absence of such defense, the jurisdiction could not be challenged because the right to challenge had been waived. It was stated in Bass at 115 Ind. 234, 17 N.E. 593:
234 Ind. at 240, 241, 17 N.E. at 596.
In McCoy v. Able (1892), 131 Ind. 417, 30 N.E. 528, involving a similar issue on filing a legal claim, our Supreme Court stated:
.' (Our Emphasis.) 131 Ind. at 419, 420, 30 N.E. at 529.
The Supreme Court also dealt with the issue of absence of filing a legal claim and its effect on the court's jurisdiction in Board of Commissioners of Hancock County v. Leggett (1888), 115 Ind. 544, 18 N.E. 53. There the same issue as was here raised by defendant County was treated by citing Bass, supra, and stating:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sheets v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections
... ... INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Board Members of the Department of Corrections, in ... "), located in Pendleton, Madison County, Indiana. The defendants are the Indiana ... See Board of Comm'rs of Delaware County v. Briggs, 167 Ind.App. 96, 337 N.E.2d ... ...
-
State v. Bouras, 1-380A57
... ... Board of Commissioners of Delaware County v. Briggs, ... ...
-
Thornton v. Pender
... ... Board of Commissioners of Delaware County v. Briggs, ... ...
-
State ex rel. Basham v. Medical Licensing Bd. of Indiana
... ... MEDICAL LICENSING BOARD OF INDIANA, Robert Kopecky, Ernest ... R. Beaver, ... , in his capacity as Prosecutor of Lake County, ... Indiana, State of Indiana, Appellees ... 2d 1245; and Board of Commissioners of Delaware County v. Briggs (1976), 167 Ind.App. 96, 340 ... ...