City of Indianapolis v. Lamkin

Citation112 N.E. 833,62 Ind.App. 125
Decision Date22 May 1916
Docket NumberNo. 9032.,9032.
PartiesCITY OF INDIANAPOLIS v. LAMKIN.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Superior Court, Marion County; Chas. J. Orbison, Judge.

Action by James W. Lamkin against the City of Indianapolis. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Wm. A. Pickens, Fred E. Barrett, Paul G. Davis, and Russell J. Ryan, all of Indianapolis, for appellant. Caleb S. Denny and George L. Denny, both of Indianapolis, for appellee.

CALDWELL, C. J.

Appellee brought this action to recover compensation for services alleged to have been performed by him in preparing an index of the proceedings of the common council of appellant city for the year 1913. A trial by the court resulted in a judgment for appellee for $300. The evidence at the trial consisted of an agreed statement of facts. If such facts, considered as evidence, are not sufficient to sustain the decision, this cause must be reversed; otherwise, affirmed.

The agreed facts to the extent material are in substance as follows: For the years 1910, 1911, 1912, and 1913, Edward A. Ramsey was city clerk of appellant city; for 15 years prior to 1910, the city clerk of appellant city was employed by the city each year to prepare an index of the proceedings of the common council, and the city paid him $300 each year for such services. In 1911 the common council by General Ordinance No. 90 adopted a rule specifying it to be the duty of the city clerk to make and keep an accurate minute and journal of the proceedings of the common council as required by the statute (section 8652, Burns 1914), and providing, also, that he should have the minutes of such proceedings printed after each meeting for the use of members of the council, and that copies thereof should be preserved on file, to be bound at the end of the year, with a proper index thereto, as the official journal of the common council. Under direction of the common council, Ramsey prepared such an index for each of the years 1910, 1911 and 1912, which having been printed was included in the bound volume for each of such years, and for his services in so doing appellant paid him $300 for each of such years. The minutes of the proceedings of 1913 were voluminous. Public necessity and convenience required that a suitable index be prepared, to be printed and bound with the volume for such year. In August, 1913, Ramsey called the attention of the city controller to such necessity, and suggested that he recommend an appropriation of $300 as a fund for indexing the council proceedings of 1913. December 1, 1913, the common council regularly passed Appropriation Ordinance No. 51, to the effect that thereby the sum of $300 was appropriated for purposes aforesaid, and that appellee was thereby employed to do such work, and that the city controller was thereby directed to draw a proper warrant therefor in favor of appellee on the completion of the work. The mayor of the city signed and approved the ordinance December 9, 1913. Some doubt having arisen respecting the validity of the ordinance, the city controller submitted the question to the city attorney, who thereupon rendered an opinion to the effect that the ordinance was invalid to the extent that it designated a particular person to receive the benefit thereof. Thereupon both Ramsey and appellee proceeded to prepare such index, each claiming that he had been employed by the city to that end. In view of the situation, the city controller notified both Ramsey and appellee by letter that he would refer the controversy to the city attorney and be guided by his opinion in making payment for such services. Ramsey, having completed his manuscript of the index, delivered it to the printing company which was under contract with the city to print and bind such proceedings of the council. The printing company, acting under instructions received from the city controller, used Ramsey's manuscript in preparing the bound volume for 1913. Appellee also delivered to the printing company a manuscript prepared by him, but it was not used. The manuscript of the index prepared by appellee and also that prepared by Ramsey was a proper and accurate index, and the labor of preparing it was in each case reasonably worth $300. Appellee and Ramsey each filed with the proper city officers a claim for such services in the sum of $300. Each claim was disallowed.

Appellee and Ramsey each thereupon brought an action against the city to recover the amount of his claim. The actions were tried by the court at the same time on the agreed statement of facts, the substance of which we have set out above. The decision of the court was against Ramsey in his action, and in favor of appellee in the action brought by him. As indicated, this appeal involves the latter action. In support of its appeal, the city states the following proposition:

“The common council of a city in this state has no power or authority to appropriate money to pay others for services which particular officials and employés of the city are to do by law, and an ordinance which appropriates money for such a purpose is invalid.”

In support of such proposition appellant cites the following decisions which seem to sustain it: Mitchell v. Wiles, 59 Ind. 364;City of Ft. Wayne v. Lehr, 88 Ind. 62;Rothrock v. Cass, 55 Ind. 334;Driftwood v. Bartholomew Co., 72 Ind. 226. To such decisions the following may be added: City of Richmond v. Dickinson, 155 Ind. 345, 58 N. E. 260;State ex rel. v. Goldthait, 172 Ind. 210, 87 N. E. 133, 19 Ann. Cas. 737. Appellee...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Mitchell v. City of Thomasville
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • December 20, 1934
    ... ... 305; May v. City of Auburn, 112 Me. 143, 91 A. 177; ... O'Sullivan v. New Orleans, 49 La. Ann. 616, 21 ... So. 854; City of Indianapolis v. Lamkin, 62 Ind.App ... 125, 112 N.E. 833; Bridges v. City of Sierra Madre, ... 27 Cal.App. 93, 148 P. 965. As was said in Buck v. City ... of ... ...
  • Mitchell v. City Of Thomasville
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • December 20, 1934
    ...Ky.) 305; May v. City of Auburn, 112 Me. 143, 91 A. 177; O'Sullivan v. New Orleans, 49 La. Ann. 616, 21 So. 854; City of Indianapolis v. Lamkin, 62 Ind. App. 125, 112 N. E. 833; Bridges v. City of Sierra Madre, 27 Cal. App. 93, 148 P. 965. As was said in Buck v. City of Eureka, 109 Cal. 504......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT