41 N.E. 811 (Ind. 1895), 17,610, Alexander v. Johnson

Docket Nº:17,610
Citation:41 N.E. 811, 144 Ind. 82
Opinion Judge:Howard, C. J.
Party Name:Alexander et al. v. Johnson
Attorney:Allspaugh & Lawler, for appellants. Elliott & Hostetter, for appellee.
Case Date:November 01, 1895
Court:Supreme Court of Indiana

Page 811

41 N.E. 811 (Ind. 1895)

144 Ind. 82

Alexander et al.



No. 17,610

Supreme Court of Indiana

November 1, 1895

Petition for Rehearing Overruled February 20, 1896.

From the Washington Circuit Court.

The judgment is affirmed.

Allspaugh & Lawler, for appellants.

Elliott & Hostetter, for appellee.


[144 Ind. 83] Howard, C. J.

From the special finding of the facts by the court, it appears that at the institution of this suit by appellee for an injunction against appellants, the appellee was a resident tax payer of the town of Salem, in Washington county; and that the appellants were the school trustees of said town. It further appears that at a meeting of said school trustees, held November 8, 1894, the board, after the transaction of its business, "adjourned until November 12, 1894, for the purpose of considering bids for furnishing coal for use in the schools of said town;" that the board met pursuant to adjournment, and received the bids for coal; that one bid was that of Johnson Bros., of which firm appellee was a member, in which bid said firm offered to furnish coal for $ 3.65 per ton; another bid was by one L. W. Sinclair, for $ 4 per ton; and a third was by William R. Alexander, one of the appellants, also for $ 4 per ton; that two of the trustees, being a majority of the board, and one of them being Alexander himself, voted to accept Alexander's bid, and the contract was awarded to him; that said acts and facts were duly entered of record upon the minute book of said school board, and not rescinded.

From the facts found, the court concluded that an [144 Ind. 84] injunction should issue, as prayed for, forbidding the school board from purchasing or paying for coal from Alexander while he is a member of the board. Judgment was entered accordingly.

The contract, if entered into, would be void, as counsel admit, both as against public policy, and also as against the letter of the statute, which makes such a contract between an official and himself as an individual, a felony. Section 2136, R. S. 1894, (section 2049, R. S. 1881); Wingate v. Harrison Tp., 59 Ind. 520; Case v. Johnson, 91 Ind. 477; Benton v. Hamilton, 110 Ind. 294, 11 N.E. 238.

But, say counsel, the contract was not consummated; the findings do not show that the board was threatening to consummate it, or to pay any money...

To continue reading