Chicago, T.H.&S. Ry. Co. v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 30 April 1914
• Docket Number: No. 22,340.,22,340.
• Citation: 182 Ind. 140,105 N.E. 49
• Parties: CHICAGO, T. H. & S. RY. CO. v. ANDERSON.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

182 Ind. 140

105 N.E. 49

CHICAGO, T. H. & S. RY. CO.

v.ANDERSON.

No. 22,340.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

April 30, 1914.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sullivan County; Wm. H. Bridewell, Judge.

Action by Champion S. Anderson against the Chicago, Terre Haute & Southeastern Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.Lamb, Beasley, Douthitt & Crawford, of Terre Haute, and William F. Peter, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Charles D. Hunt and Gilbert W. Gambill, both of Sullivan, for appellee.

ERWIN, J.

This action was commenced before a justice of the peace by appellee against appellant to recover the statutory penalty of $25, for failure to cut thistles, burrs, noxious weeds, etc., as provided in sections 5524, 5525, Burns 1908. From a judgment for the amount of the statutory penalty of $25 and costs, rendered by the justice of the peace, appellant appealed to the circuit court. Appellant, in the circuit court, filed its motion to make the complaint more specific, which motion was overruled. Appellant then filed its demurrer, which was overruled. Upon the issues formed by a general denial to the complaint, the cause was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, and resulted in a finding and judgment for the statutory penalty of $25.

The errors relied upon for reversal in this court are: First, the overruling of appellant's motion to make appellee's complaint more specific; second, overruling appellant's demurrer to appellee's complaint; third, the overruling of the motion for a new trial; fourth, the overruling of the motion in arrest of judgment.

Appellant contends that the act of March 6, 1889, being sections 5524, 5525, Burns 1908, is unconstitutional and void, in that it denies the appellant the equal protection of the laws, and is in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitution, and that it imposes duties and obligations upon railroad corporations, with respect to lands occupied by them, which are not imposed upon other citizens, whether individuals or corporations, with respect to lands occupied by them.

The act in question reads as follows:

“Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Indiana, that all railroad corporations doing business in this state shall, between the first day of July and the twentieth day of August in each year, cause all thistles, burrs, docks and noxious weeds growing on lands occupied by them in any city, village or township of this state, to be cut down and destroyed.

“Sec. 2. In case any railroad company shall refuse or neglect to comply with the requirements specified in the first section of this act, such company shall be liable in a penalty of twenty-five dollars, to be prosecuted for in an action of debt by any person feeling himself aggrieved. Said suit may be brought before any justice of the peace in the county, who shall require of the complainant surety to pay costs in case he fails to maintain his action; summons may be served on any agent or officer of the company.”

[1] The right to impose restraints upon the use and disposal of articles found by experience or upon inspection to be injurious to the health, morals, or general welfare of her citizens belongs to the state, and come under the police regulation; and, if the law is uniform and general, and applies to all persons in the same circumstances and treat them alike, the act could not be said to be in conflict with the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution or contravene section 23, art. 1, of the state Constitution. Levy v. State, 161 Ind. 251, 68 N. E. 172;Davis Coal Co. v. Polland, 158 Ind. 607-617, 62 N. E. 492, 92 Am. St. Rep. 319;Parks v. State, 159 Ind. 211, 215, 64 N. E. 862, 59 L. R. A. 190;State v. Barrett, 172 Ind. 169, 87 N. E. 7;Hirth-Krause Co. v. Cohen, 177 Ind. 1, 97 N. E. 1;Vandalia R. Co. v. Stilwell, 104 N. E. 289, and cases cited.

[2] Police power is the name given to that inherent sovereignty which it is the right and duty of the government or its agents to exercise whenever public policy in a broad sense demands, for the benefit of society at large, regulations to guard its morals, safety, health, order, or to insure in any respect such economic conditions as an advancing civilization of a highly complex character requires. 8 Cyc. 863.

[3] It is contended, further, that as there are no averments of any actual damages sustained by appellee, the complaint...