Bd. of Com'rs of Jackson Co. v. State ex rel. Hord
| Decision Date | 23 April 1886 |
| Citation | 6 N.E. 623,106 Ind. 270 |
| Parties | Board of Com'rs of Jackson Co. v. State ex rel. Hord, Atty. Gen. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Jackson circuit court.
B. H. Burrill, for appellant.
The Attorney General, for appellee.
The attorney general prosecutes this action, in behalf of the state, to recover from Jackson county an amount of the school fund which, as alleged, was applied to the payment of officer's fees, for collecting and disbursing the common and congressional school funds. The claim filed was the same in form as that set out in the case of State v. Board, etc., 90 Ind. 359. The claim came before the board of commissioners of Jackson county, was passed upon by that body, was disallowed, and the county auditor was directed not to draw his warrant for the amount claimed, nor for any part thereof. The state appealed to the circuit court. In that court, appellant, by its counsel, demurred to the claim, designating it a complaint. The demurrer was sustained, and upon leave of court an amended complaint was filed. Subsequently appellant, by counsel, moved to stike it out upon the ground that there had been “no sufficient complaint before the board of commissioners.” This motion was overruled. That ruling is assigned here as error.
It is not necessary for us to determine as to whether or not the claim before the county board was sufficient in form. It came before that body, and was recognized as a basis upon which to rest an adjudication. It was, at least, sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the board over the subject-matter. See Board, etc., v. Graham, 98 Ind. 279.
No question has been made as to the sufficiency of the amended complaint. The court did not err in overruling the motion to strike it from the files.
The funds were so appropriated to the payment of fees in the years 1856 to 1862, both inclusive. By proper answers appellant raised the question as to whether or not the six, fifteen, and twenty years statute of limitations had not barred a recovery. This question has been considered by this court in recent cases, where it was decided that in an action for the recovery of the school funds the state was not barred by the statutes of limitation, although prior to the Code of 1881 those statutes generally barred the state the same as individuals. It would not be profitable to restate here the grounds upon which those decisions are based. It is sufficient to cite the cases: State v. Board, etc., 90...
To continue reading
Request your trial