Chandler v. Beal

• Decision Date: 18 November 1892
• Docket Number: 15,987
• Parties: Chandler et al. v. Beal et al
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

32 N.E. 597

132 Ind. 596

Chandler et al. v. Beal et al

No. 15,987

Supreme Court of Indiana

November 18, 1892

From the Fulton Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed.

M. R Smith and D. C. Justice, for appellants.

G. W Holman and R. C. Stephenson, for appellees.

OPINION

Miller, J.

This case is in this court a second time. Bell v. Cox, 122 Ind. 153, 23 N.E. 705.

After its return to the circuit court a trial was had upon the issue joined upon the petition and remonstrance, which resulted in the approval of the report of the drainage commissioners, and an order for the construction of the ditch.

The first question discussed in the briefs of counsel relates to the ruling of the court in permitting the petition and report of the commissioners to be introduced and read in evidence.

It is now well settled that the reports of drainage commissioners are not competent evidence on an appeal from such assessments, and that when proper objections are made and exceptions taken the admission of such evidence will constitute reversible error. Corey v. Swagger, 74 Ind. 211; Beck v. Pavey, 69 Ind. 304; Turley v. Oldham, 68 Ind. 114; McKinsey v. Bowman, 58 Ind. 88; Coyner v. Boyd, 55 Ind. 166; Freck v. Christian, 55 Ind. 320.

Objections to the introduction of evidence must be made at the time it is offered, and the grounds of the objection stated with such reasonable certainty as to call the mind of the court to the rule or rules of law making it incompetent. Objections not stated to the court below will not be considered by this court on appeal. Lake Erie, etc., R. W. Co. v. Parker, 94 Ind. 91; Binford v. Young, 115 Ind. 174, 16 N.E. 142; Elliott's App. Procedure, section 779.

Where specific grounds of objection are stated, the implication is that there are no others, or, if others, that they are waived. Elliott's App. Procedure, section 775.

The objections to the admission of the evidence complained of are stated in the record as follows:

"Remonstrators then and there objected to the introduction of the report of the commissioners of drainage, but the court overruled the objection, and to this ruling the remonstrators then and there objected. Their objection was based on the ground that E. J. Deep, one of the commissioners, was not regularly appointed; they also objected to the report of the commissioners of drainage on the ground that it does not show that the proposed ditch will be sufficient to carry off all the water, and that one interested person, Zephaniah Beall, was a chainman, assisting the commissioners in locating the ditch; they also objected to the report on the grounds that after the viewers made their report showing they assessed land in "Union" township, it was inserted "Rochester" township, without the assembling of the commissioners to amend their report themselves.

"The court overruled the objections of the remonstrators to the report, and to this ruling the remonstrators then and there excepted."

This objection not only did not specifically point out the grounds of objection urged to it in this court, but was well calculated to divert the attention of the court away from the record and authorities making the evidence incompetent.

The appellants offered to prove by a number of witnesses that the route selected for the proposed ditch was not the most practicable, but that another route would accomplish the purpose of drainage better, cheaper and be more practicable;...