Chandler v. Beall

• Decision Date: 18 November 1892
• Citation: 32 N.E. 597,132 Ind. 596
• Parties: CHANDLER et al. v. BEALL et al.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

132 Ind. 596

32 N.E. 597

CHANDLER et al.

v.BEALL et al.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Nov. 18, 1892.

Appeal from circuit court, Fulton county; Isaiah Conner, Judge.

Remonstrance by Anna S. B. Chandler and others to the petition of Zephaniah Beall and others for the establishment of a drainage ditch. Judgment for petitioners, and remonstrants appeal. Affirmed.

Milo R. Smith and D. C. Justice, for appellants. Holman & Stephenson, for appellees.

Miller, J.

This case is in this court a second time. Bell v. Cox, 122 Ind. 153, 23 N. E. Rep. 705. After its return to the circuit court a trial was had upon the issues 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 in 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;Truley v. Oldham, 68 Ind. 114;McKinsey v. Bowman, 58 Ind. 88;Coyner v. Boyd, 55 Ind. 166; Freck v. Christian, Id. 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 rules of law making it incompetent. Objections not stated in the court below will not be considered by this court on appeal. Railway Co. v. Parker, 94 Ind. 91;Binford v. Young, 115 Ind. 174, 16 N. E. Rep. 142; Elliott, App. Proc. § 779. Where specific grounds of objection are stated, the implication is that there are no others, or, if others, that they are waived. Elliott, App. Proc. § 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 F. J. Deep, one of the commissioners, was not regularly appointed. They also objected to the report of the commissionersof drainage on the grounds that it does not show that the proposed ditch will be sufficient to carry off all the water, and that an interested person, Zephaniah Beall, was a chairman 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 objection of the remonstrators to the report, and to this ruling the remonstrators “then and there excepted.” The 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 reason and authorities making the evidence incompetent.

The appellants offered to prove by a number of...