Bd. of Com'rs of White County v. Gwin
Citation | 36 N.E. 237,136 Ind. 562 |
Parties | BOARD OF COM'RS OF WHITE COUNTY v. GWIN, Sheriff, et al. |
Decision Date | 23 January 1894 |
Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, White county; L. Walker, Judge pro tem.
Action by the board of commissioners of White county against James P. Gwin, sheriff, and others, to enjoin defendants from carrying out a contract entered into by Gwin with certain of his codefendants, under which they were about to demolish the courthouse, and erect a new one in its stead. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.Guthrie & Bushnell and Davidson & Lewis, for appellant. Sellers & Uhl and Gould & Eldridge, for appellees.
Suit to enjoin the appellees, the sheriff, auditor, and treasurer of said county, and Charles Pearce and Thomas Morgan, contractors, from carrying out a certain contract entered into by said Gwin, as sheriff of said county, under the order of said circuit court, on one side, and said Pearce & Morgan, on the other, by which it was claimed by the appellant that the old courthouse of the county was being, or about to be, demolished, and substantially a new courthouse was to be erected, instead of the old, at a cost of $32,087.50; while it was claimed on the other hand that the carrying out of the contract was only making needed repairs of the court room. There is really no material controversy about the facts, but the main dispute is about the law that governs the case.
It is alleged in the complaint, and the evidence shows, that on the 16th day of May, 1892, the White circuit court made and entered a finding and order condemning the court room as unsafe and unfit for further use, in the following words: On May 26, 1892, the said court ordered said court room repaired, by an order modified on July 11, 1892, and entered of record as follows: It is further shown that the court ordered the said sheriff to procure another room in the town of Monticello in which to hold court, which was done, and the court and its records moved out of said courthouse, and to the building thus secured to be occupied and used as a court room while the work contemplated was being done. It is further alleged in the complaint that about the year 1850 the board of commissioners of White county built the courthouse now in question, in the upper part of which is the court room, giving a minute description of the building, the original cost of which is stated to be but $10,000, while the contract price of the work contemplated in the order, as reduced by the modification, is $32,087.50, with a liability, under the order allowing the court and architect to change the plans and specifications, to reach many thousands of dollars more; that no additions had ever been made thereto, and that said courthouse, as originally constructed in the public square at the county seat, was a substantial two-story brick courthouse, 70 feet long by 48 feet wide and 30 feet high, surmounted by a wooden belfry 10 1/2 feet square and 25 feet high, containing on the first floor offices and vaults for the clerk, auditor, treasurer, and recorder, and on the second floor a large and commodious court room and a small jury room, which court room and offices had been continuously used by the officers and courts up to July 12, 1892; that appellant had repaired it from time to time; that the plans and specifications require the tearing away of so much of the old building as to constitute a practical destruction of it, and a remodeling and reconstruction thereof; that the contract was entered into without the plans and specifications having been first filed in the office of the county auditor, and without having advertised for bids.
The material parts of the appellees' answer are as follows: “That the courthouse at Monticello, White county, Ind., was and still is the only place in said county provided for and as a place of holding the sessions of the circuit court of said county; that on the 16th day of May, 1892, and long prior thereto, said building was out of repair, to wit, that the plastering on the ceiling of the court room was loose, and liable to fall upon persons in the court room engaged in business before the White circuit court; that the foundation of said building was and is defective in this, to wit, that the part thereof under ground is composed of boulders laid too loosely, and not to sufficient depth to give the required strength to sustain the walls built thereon, and because of said defective foundation the walls of said building have settled and cracked, and will fall to the ground unless they are strengthened and supported; that, to sustain said walls from below, it is necessary to place thereunder a sound and secure foundation of cut stone and cement, and to hold said walls in place, and prevent them from splitting and falling outward, it is necessary to give them lateral support, by the erection against the same of the additional walls contemplated by the contract of the defendants Pearce & Morgan; that by placing under the walls a new foundation, properly constructed, etc., which can be easily done, under the contract of Pearce & Morgan, * * * without removing or in any wise impairing said walls, and by the erection of said additional walls, said building would be given sufficient strength, and securely held in place, and that, unless said walls are so strengthened and supported as aforesaid, it would be impossible to make the repairs that are necessary to the court room, which occupies the second story of said building, and which is the only room provided for the holding of the circuit court of said county; that, because of the insecure and dilapidated condition of the walls of said court room hereinbefore mentioned, the same is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte France
...... constitutionality of an act giving a superior court of a certain county the exact jurisdiction conferred on circuit courts, and in the course of ...Board, etc., v. Gwin (1894) 136 Ind. 562 [36 N. E. 237], 22 L. R. A. 402; Brown, Jurisdiction ......
-
Ex parte France
...... judgment of the Superior Court of Marion County was final in. a matter relating to assessments for street improvements. ... jurisdiction. Board, etc., v. Gwin (1894),. 136 Ind. 562, 36 N.E. 237, [176 Ind. 125] 22 L. R. A. 402;. ......
-
State ex rel. White v. Barker
...... authorizing the appointment of such officials by the district. court of the county. The trial court dismissed the petitions,. and the plaintiff and the intervener appeal. . . ... make contracts to keep court rooms in repair Board of. Commissioners v. Gwin , 136 Ind. 562, (36 N.E. 237, 22 L. R. A. 402); may appoint commissioners to apportion and assess. ......
-
State ex rel. Harp v. Vanderburgh Circuit Court
...... of the White Circuit Court had assembled at the time. appointed by law for holding ... this court in Board of Commissioners of White County v. Gwin, Sheriff, 1894, 136 Ind. 562, 569, 570, 36 N.E. 237, 240, 22 ......