Cincinnati, Indianapolis & Western Railroad Company v. Board of Public Works of City of Indianapolis
| Decision Date | 12 March 1918 |
| Docket Number | 23,142 |
| Citation | 118 N.E. 957,187 Ind. 235 |
| Parties | Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Western Railroad Company et al. v. Board of Public Works of the City of Indianapolis et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Marion Superior Court (92,782); W. W. Thornton, Linn D. Hay Vincent G. Clifford, John J. Rochford and Theophilus J. Moll Judges.
Proceedings for elevation of railroad tracks. From a judgment of the superior court, sitting as a court of review, affirming the finding and judgment of the board of public works, the Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Western Railroad Company and another appeal adversely to the board of public works, the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad Company, and the Indianapolis Union Railway Company.
Appeal dismissed.
J. W Fesler, Harvey J. Elam and Howard S. Young, for appellants.
Baker & Daniels and Pickens & Pickens, for appellees.
On October 24, 1913, the board of public works of the city of Indianapolis adopted a resolution relative to the elevation of certain railroad tracks over LaSalle street in said city. Within fifteen days thereafter appellants duly perfected an appeal from the action of the board to the Superior Court of Marion county, sitting as a court of review in accordance with the provisions of § 8867 Burns 1914, Acts 1905 p 144. That statute provides that "upon such appeal being taken all parties shall be deemed bound thereby, and said court, all the judges thereof sitting, may modify or confirm the order of said board in whole or in part, and the finding and judgment of such court shall be final and binding on all parties and no appeal shall lie therefrom."
A trial of the issues presented by the appeal to the superior court resulted in a finding and judgment that the action of the board of public works should be in all things affirmed. It is from that judgment that the present appeal is sought to be prosecuted, for the purpose, in part, of establishing appellants' contention that the statute above referred to is unconstitutional and void in so far as it denies to an interested party litigant the right to appeal from an adverse decision of the superior court.
The procedure authorized by the track elevation law is special in character, and the rule is well settled that the general right of appeal from final judicial judgments does not obtain in special proceedings. Unless that right is expressly granted, no appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial