Bd. of Com'rs of Decatur Cnty. v. Greensburg Times
| Decision Date | 01 May 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 27197.,27197. |
| Citation | 215 Ind. 471,20 N.E.2d 647 |
| Parties | BOARD OF COM'RS OF DECATUR COUNTY v. GREENSBURG TIMES. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Ripley County; Frank Gardner, judge.
On petition for rehearing.
Petition denied.
For former opinion see 19 N.E.2d 459.John M. Wood, Raymond Rolfes, and Wickens & Wickens, all of Greensburg, for appellant.
John W. Goddard, of Greensburg, Robert A. Creigmile, of Osgood, and Turner & Woodfill, of Greensburg, for appellee.
Appellant has presented a petition for rehearing and a brief in which it is forcibly urged that the opinion of this court does violence to a section of the County Reform Act (Ch. 154, § 33, Acts 1899, § 26-533, Burns' 1933, Section 5398, Baldwin's Ind.St.1934), which provides: ‘Hereafter the board of county commissioners, or any authority, shall have no power whatever to make any allowance for voluntary services, or for things voluntarily furnished, and no power to pay, or cause the same to be paid for, out of the county treasury * * *.’
In support of its contention that appellee should be barred from recovering on account of the statute quoted, appellant says that the services rendered were voluntary, and cites Section 115, Chapter 5, of the Restatement of the Law of Restitution. Said Chapter 5 is devoted to the subject of ‘Benefits Voluntarily Conferred,’ and Section 115 to ‘Performance of Another's Duty to the Public.’ The rule is stated in said section as follows:
‘A person who has performed the duty of another by supplying things or services, although acting without the other's knowledge or consent, is entitled to restitution from the other if
‘(a) he acted unofficiously and with intent to charge therefor, and
‘(b) the things or services supplied were immediately necessary to satisfy the requirements of public decency, health, or safety’ (Our italics.)
The Restatements promulgated by The American Law Institute are entitled to great weight and we accept the rule quoted above as an authoritative expositionof the law on the subject considered, but it is not applicable to the case at bar. We are not presently concerned with benefits voluntarily conferred. The Reform Act expressly prohibits compensation for services so rendered to a county, and our former opinion does not infringe upon that statute. The rule of law which we deem applicable, and which we undertook to clearly state in the original opinion, is recognized and expressed in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial