Book v. Indianapolis-Marion Bldg. Authority
| Decision Date | 20 April 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 29228,INDIANAPOLIS-MARION,29228 |
| Citation | 234 Ind. 250,126 N.E.2d 5 |
| Parties | William H. BOOK, Appellant, v.BUILDING AUTHORITY; William A. Hanley, Nola A. Boyer, Maynard R. Hokanson, William P. Flynn, Roy Sahm, as Directors of Indianapolis-Marion Building Authority; Charles J. Lynn, Herman C. Krannert, Robert J. Kryter, James Birr, Trustees of Indianapolis-Marion Building Authority, Appellees. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
David M. Lewis, Thomas E. Garvin, Indianapolis, for appellant.
John A. Alexander, Donald A. Schabel, Indianapolis, Buschmann, Krieg, DeVault & Alexander, Indianapolis, of counsel, for appellee.
The sole question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant's amended complaint contained facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against appellees as against the demurrer for want of such facts which was addressed to it.
In view of the importance of the subject matter we set out the amended complaint in its entirety, except for formal parts, as follows:
'Comes now the Plaintiff and complains of the Defendants and each of them, and for cause of action alleges and says:
'1. That the Plaintiff herein, William H. Book, is a taxpayer of Marion County, Indiana, and has been during the whole of the current year, and for many years prior thereto has been such a taxpayer and during all of said time said Plaintiff has been a resident freeholder of Marion County, Indiana.
'2. That the Defendant, Indianapolis-Marion Building Authority, is a body corporate, organized and existing in the State of Indiana by virtue of Chapter 54 of the Acts of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana for the year 1953.
'3. That the Defendants, William A. Hanley, Nola A. Boyer, Maynard R. Hokanson, William P. Flynn and Roy Sahm are Directors of the above named Defendant, Indianapolis-Marion Building Authority, having been appointed in accordance with Chapter 54 of the Acts of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana for the year 1953.
'4. That the Defendants herein, Charles J. Lynn, Herman C. Krannert, Maynard Hokanson, Robert J. Kryter and James Birr are Trustees of the above named Defendant, Indianapolis-Marion Building Authority, appointed in accordance with Chapter 54 of the Acts of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, 1953.
'5. That pursuant to said Act, said Authority is organized to finance, acquire, construct, equip, operate and lease to the governmental units within the territorial boundaries of Marion County, Indiana, lands or buildings for public or governmental purposes in accordance with the Acts of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, 1953, Chapter 54.
'6. That by the Constitution of the State of Indiana, Article XIII, Sec. 1, the indebtedness of a political or municipal corporation is limited in the words and figures, to-wit:
"No political or municipal corporation in this State shall ever become indebted in any manner or for any purpose to an amount in the aggregate exceeding two per centum on the value of the taxable property within such corporation, to be ascertained by the last assessment for State and county texes, previous to the incurring of such indebtedness; and all bonds or obligations, in excess of such amount, given by such corporations, shall be void: Provided, That in time of war, foreign invasion, or other great public calamity, on petition of a majority of the property owners, in number and value, within the limits of such corporation, the public authorities, in their discretion, may incur obligations necessary for the public protection and defense, to such an amount as may be requested in such petition.'
'7. That heretofore on or about the 20th day of April, 1954, the County Council of Marion County, Indiana, appropriated for the use of the Defendant, Indianapolis-Marion Building Authority, the sum of One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars. That under the provisions of Chapter 54 of the Acts of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, 1953, said One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars is to be repaid out of funds that the Defendant, Indianapolis-Marion Building Authority, may derive from the sale of bonds pursuant to said Act or from a loan or loans negotiated in lieu of such sale of bonds.
'8. Plaintiff alleges that said Chapter 54 of the Acts of the General Assembly of 1953 is unconstitutional and void in the following particulars:
'9. That the Defendant, Indianapolis-Marion Building Authority, Does not have any property or assets of any nature or kind, excepting only the said One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars appropriated by the Marion County Council as aforesaid. That Defendant, Indianapolis-Marion Building Authority, does not have any means of repaying said One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars, except by the sale of revenue bonds or by the negotiation of a loan or loans under the provisions of Chapter 54 of the Acts of 1953, as aforesaid.
'10. That unless the Defendants are enjoined from expending said funds appropriated by the Marion County Council as alleged herein, it will be impossible for Marion County to be repaid said sum of One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars, to the damage of the Plaintiff herein and all other taxpayers of Marion County, Indiana.
'11. That said Defendant, Indianapolis-Marion Building Authority, cannot issue said bonds or negotiate said lona or loans as provided in Chapter 54 of the Acts of the General Assembly, 1953, for the reason that any leases with governmental units located within Marion County would be void as alleged in Paragraph 8(a) and for the additional reason that said Indianapolis-Marion Building Authority is a corporation, organized contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the State of Indiana as alleged in Paragraph 8(b).
'12. That the Plaintiff herein does not have an adequate remedy at law.
'Wherefore, Plaintiff prays that the Defendants and each of them be permanently enjoined from expending any of the funds appropriated by the Marion County Council on April 20, 1954, and that said Defendants be permanently enjoined from taking any further action under and pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 54 of the Acts of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, 1953, for the costs of this action and for all other further relief in the premises.' (Tr. pp. 35-40).
The demurrer and memorandum addressed to the amended complaint, omitting formal parts, reads as follows:
'The Defendants demur to the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, filed herein on the ground that such amended complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants or any of them.
'Memorandum
'1. The Amended Complaint does not state facts sufficient to show that rentals reserved under leases which might be entered into between governmental units located within Marion County and the Indianapolis-Marion Building Authority would constitute indebtedness in excess of the indebtedness permitted to those governmental units under Article XIII, Sec. 1, of the Constitution of the State of Indiana.
'2. The Amended Complaint does not state facts sufficient to show that the Indianapolis-Marion Building Authority was created by a special act of the General Assembly in violation of Article XI, Section 13, of the Constitution of the State of Indiana.
After argument of counsel the court sustained the demurrer and the appellant, refusing to amend or plead further, judgment was entered on said demurrer.
The sole error assigned is the sustaining of the demurrer.
To reach its finding and decision the trial court was called upon to pass upon the constitutionality of Acts 1953, Ch. 54, § 26-2501 et seq., Burns' 1948 Repl., 1953 Cum.Supp. The trial court held the statute involved constitutional and not violative of Art. 13, § 1, or Art. 11, § 13, of the Constitution of the State of Indiana.
By the appeal this court is called upon to pass finally upon the two constitutional questions involved, I. e., (1) whether the Act created a corporation with power to issue revenue bonds creating an indebtedness in excess of the limitation of two per cent of taxables, and an indebtedness in excess of the limitation to be incurred by the municipality by way of rent obligation extending to a possible forty year term, all as a subterfuge to evade Art. 13; and (2) whether the Act constitutes 'a special act of the General Assembly' other than a banking corporation, allegedly in violation of Art. 11, of the Constitution of the State of Indiana.
The Act itself, encompassing ten pages of the official statute, should be read in its entirety for a complete understanding of its intent and import. Space unfortunately does not permit copying here. §§ 26-2501 to 26-2523 inclusive, Burns' 1948 Repl. 1953 Cum.Supp.
We will consider the two questions raised by the decision in the order in which they appear in the memorandum of the demurrer.
Appellant, in his brief, first urges seriously that the Act involved sets...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Book v. State Office Bldg. Commission
...of Indiana. Ennis v. State Highway Commission, supra, 1952, 231 Ind. 311, 325, 108 N.E.2d 687, 694; Book v. Indianapolis-Marion Bldg. Authority, 1955, 234 Ind. 250, 263, 126 N.E.2d 5, 11; People ex rel. Greening v. Green, 1943, 382 Ill. 577, 585, 47 N.E.2d 465, 470; Kelley v. Earle, 1937, 3......
-
Alanel Corp. v. Indianapolis Redevelopment Commission
...by a special Act of the Legislature in violation of Art. 11, § 13 of the Constitution of Indiana. Book v. Indianapolis-Marion Bldg. Auth., 1955, 234 Ind. 250, 263, 126 N.E.2d 5; Indiana State Toll Bridge Commission v. Minor, 1957, 236 Ind. 193, 139 N.E.2d 445; Johnson v. Board of Park Commi......
-
Bailey v. Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Authority Dist.
...al. v. Buckner et al., 1954, 233 Ind. 32, 35, 116 N.E.2d 507), a city-county building authority (see Book v. Indianapolis-Marion Bldg. Auth. et al., 1955, 234 Ind. 250, 263, 126 N.E.2d 5), a school building corporation (see Becker et al. v. Albion-Jefferson School Corp. et al., 1956, 235 In......
-
405 Monroe Corp. v. City of Asbury Park, C--1856
...to provide the Lessee shall be under any obligation to purchase demised premises'. In a later case, Book v. Indianapolis Marion Bldg. Author., 234 Ind. 250, 126 N.E.2d 5, 10 (Sup.Ct.1955), the court 'Under said contract the city Is under no obligation whatever * * * to purchase the same whe......