City of Indianapolis v. Hawkins
Citation | 103 N.E. 10,180 Ind. 382 |
Decision Date | 06 November 1913 |
Docket Number | 22,377 |
Parties | City of Indianapolis et al. v. Hawkins et al |
Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
From Superior Court of Marion County (86,681); Pliny W Bartholomew, Judge.
Proceedings by the City of Indianapolis for the construction of a sewer in which Edward Hawkins and others filed a petition in the superior court for the appointment of appraisers to review the assessments against their lands. From the action of the court in receiving the report of the appraisers, this appeal is prosecuted.
Appeal dismissed.
Joseph B. Kealing, Merle N. A. Walker and Newton J. McGuire, for appellants.
Austin F. Denny, William N. Harding, Alfred R. Hovey and Omer U Newman, for appellees.
The original proceedings in this case were had under §§ 8722-8725 Burns 1908, Acts 1905 p. 219, Acts 1907 p. 563 pursuant to which the city of Indianapolis, through its Board of Public Works, caused a certain sewer to be constructed and assessed a part of the cost thereof against certain lands belonging to appellees. Appellees' remonstrance against such assessment was overruled, whereupon they filed a verified petition in the Marion Superior Court, in which petition they showed that the amounts assessed against them were excessive and asked that appraisers be appointed to review such assessments. Appraisers were duly appointed, and in their report said assessments were materially lessened. This report was received by the Marion Superior Court over the objection of appellants, and this appeal followed.
In their various assignments of error appellants seek (1) to have reviewed certain rulings made by the judge of the Marion Superior Court during the proceedings, and (2) to question the constitutionality of § 8725, supra.
Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss this proceeding on the ground that no appeal is allowed in actions of this character and that this court is therefore without jurisdiction to determine the several questions which appellants seek to present. Appellants concede that no appeal is permitted from the action of the board of appraisers but insist that this appeal is properly taken to determine certain questions of procedure incident to the action of the superior court in appointing such appraisers and in receiving their report.
According to the definition approved in Robertson v. State, ex rel. (1887), 109 Ind. 79, 82, 10 N.E. 582, "The jurisdiction of a court means, the power or authority which is conferred upon a court, by the Constitution and laws, to hear and determine causes between parties, and to carry its judgments into effect." But the right to exercise such power does not authorize a court to reach out and assume jurisdiction in each and every case to which its attention may be called. This power to act judicially is limited to that given to courts by the law of the land and cannot be conferred by the consent or request of parties in cases where the court would otherwise be without it. It is the law which gives jurisdiction and it must follow as a fundamental rule, applicable to all cases, that such jurisdiction can be invoked only by some method known to the law.
In our practice the familiar and, in all cases to which it applies the exclusive method of presenting a question to an appellate tribunal, is by an appeal. This proceeding, as a remedy of review, was unknown to the common law and is statutory in origin. With certain exceptions which we need not here consider, it may be taken only from a final judgment, order or decree rendered in a judicial proceeding, and then only in case an appeal is permitted in such proceeding. In the case at bar, the proceeding is special in character and, since no appeal is expressly granted, none may be taken from any action or decision of the tribunal conducting such proceeding. Randolph v. City of Indianapolis ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Indiana State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. Davis
...court acts in an executive or administrative capacity rather than according to the course of the common law. See City of Indianapolis v. Hawkins, 180 Ind. 382, 103 N. E. 10. Moreover, “statutes are to be regarded as forming parts of one great uniform body of law, and are not to be deemed is......
-
Indiana State Personnel Board v. Parkman, 20675
...Tel. Co. (1930), 201 Ind. 667, 171 N.E. 65; Cushman v. Hussey (1918), 187 Ind. 228, 118 N.E. 816; City of Indianapolis v. Hawkins (1913), 180 Ind. 382, 103 N.E. 10; 125 A.L.R. 736. In addition the Administrative Adjudication Act specifically exempted benevolent, reformatory or penal institu......
-
Bemis v. Guirl Drainage Co.
...the law provides for a review of the assessments on appeal. Collins v. Laybold (1914) 104 N. E. 971;City of Indianapolis v. Hawkins (1914) 103 N. E. 10; 2 Lewis on Eminent Domain (3d Ed.) § 567; 1 Elliott, Roads & Streets, § 357. [11] It is further contended by counsel for appellant that wh......
-
Bemis v. Guirl Drainage Company
...... State (1911), 175 Ind. 112, 93 N.E. 543, and cases. there cited; School Town of Windfall City v. Somerville (1914), 181 Ind. 463, 104 N.E. 859;. Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley . ... Collins v. Laybold 1914), post 126, 104 N.E. 971;. City of Indianapolis v. Hawkins (1913), 180. Ind. 382, 103 N.E. 10; 2 Lewis, Eminent Domain (3d ed.). § 567; 1 ......