Chandler v. The City of Kokomo

• Decision Date: 14 March 1894
• Docket Number: 16,672
• Citation: 36 N.E. 847,137 Ind. 295
• Parties: Chandler et al. v. The City of Kokomo et al
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

36 N.E. 847

137 Ind. 295

Chandler et al. v. The City of Kokomo et al

No. 16,672

Supreme Court of Indiana

March 14, 1894

From the Tipton Circuit Court.

The judgment is reversed.

C. N Pollard, for appellants.

J. C Blacklidge, C. C. Shirley and B. C. Moon, for appellees.

OPINION

Hackney, J.

This proceeding was by the appellee, The City of Kokomo, for the annexation of certain unplatted territory lying contiguous to said city and owned by the appellants and others who are joined as appellees. On appeal from the order of annexation by the board of commissioners of Howard county the venue was changed to the court below, where, upon a full hearing, said territory was again ordered annexed, and from this order the appellants have appealed to this court.

The first question presented by the assignments of error and argument of counsel is the sufficiency of the petition upon which the annexation was ordered, the appellants insisting that the reasons stated therein for such annexation were not adequate.

The petition states the reasons for taking said territory within the city jurisdiction as follows: "Because the growth of said city is largely started in that direction, by having so large a body of land out of the jurisdiction of the city and between the city limits and other land east of the same upon which houses are being erected, and the owners of which require the opening of streets to encourage further building; for the further development it is necessary to open and improve streets through the same, which the owners now refuse to do and can not be required to do while out of the jurisdiction of the city. Said property lies on the main line of the water mains of said city, and all the public advantages of which are within easy access, which said property contributes nothing to help sustain; the only highway connecting Sycamore and Jefferson streets in said city, two of the most prominent thoroughfares therein, for the distance of more than a half mile on either side, is the narrow roadway lying along the property of said Chandler, which can't accommodate the traffic thereon in the near future without widening and improving, especially so, since the location of the driving park near Wild Cat creek, south of the southern terminus of said road."

The only requirement of the statute on this subject is that the petition shall set "forth the reasons for such annexation." R. S. 1881, section 3196; R. S. 1894, section 3659.

It has been held by this court that as the statute does not prescribe the reasons which shall be sufficient, the question is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the authority passing upon the petition. Catterlin v. City of Frankfort, 87 Ind. 45.

In that case and the case of Elston v. Board, etc., 20 Ind. 272, petitions of the general character of that in the present case were held sufficient. If, as indicated, the sufficiency of the reasons is a question within the sound discretion of the authority to which they are addressed, we could not review the exercise of that discretion unless possibly, we should find that it had been palpably abused. While we feel entirely satisfied of the sufficiency of the reasons for the annexation, as stated in the petition, we deem it advisable to repeat the rule for determining the sufficiency of an application in this respect, as we find that rule well stated in Vestal v. Little Rock, 54 Ark. 321, 15 S.W. 891: "The city limits may reasonably and properly be extended so as to take in contiguous lands, (1) when they are platted and held for sale or use as town lots, (2) whether platted or not, if they are held to be brought on the market and sold as town property when they reach a value corresponding with the views of the owner, (3) when they furnish the abode for a densely settled community, or represent the actual growth of the town beyond its legal boundary, (4) when they are needed for any proper town purpose, as for the extension of streets, or sewers, gas or water system, or to supply places for the abode or business of its residents, or for the extension of needed police regulation, and (5) when they are valuable by reason of their adaptability for prospective town uses." See also Beach on Public...