Coats v. State ex rel. Marion Window Glass Company
| Decision Date | 29 November 1892 |
| Docket Number | 16,018 |
| Citation | 32 N.E. 737,133 Ind. 36 |
| Parties | Coats v. The State, ex rel. Marion Window Glass Company |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Grant Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
G. W Harvey and A. De Wolf, for appellant.
W. H Carroll and G. D. Dean, for appellee.
On the 27th day of October, 1890, one DuWaux recovered a judgment against the Marion Window Glass Company before the appellant, who was an acting justice of the peace of Center township, in Grant county. Within thirty days after the rendition of said judgment, the company filed with the appellant a good and sufficient appeal bond in said cause, and prayed an appeal to the Grant Circuit Court. The appellant refused to approve the bond and grant the appeal. This action was brought in the Grant Circuit Court by the appellee to compel the appellant, by mandate, to approve the appeal bond, and to make a certified transcript of the proceedings had before him, and file the same, together with the papers in the cause, with the clerk of the Grant Circuit Court.
The appellant answered the complaint in two paragraphs:
First. That he had considered the appeal bond tendered and filed with him insufficient, and for that reason he rejected it.
Second. That he demanded his fees of the Window Glass Company in advance, which it refused to pay.
In our opinion neither of these answers was sufficient to bar the action brought by the appellee. The appellant admits that the bond filed with him was, in fact, a good and sufficient appeal bond in the case which the company sought to appeal. This being true, it was the duty of the appellant to accept and approve it. If his determination of the sufficiency of the bond were to be adjudged conclusive between the parties, then it would be within the power of a justice of the peace to make his court a court of last resort in any case tried before him by simply determining that any appeal bond tendered him was insufficient. It was never intended, we think, to confer any such power upon a justice of the peace in this State.
The acceptance and approval of a good and sufficient bond when tendered was a mere ministerial duty, and mandamus is the proper remedy for a refusal to perform such duty. Gulick v. New, 14 Ind. 93; Board, etc., v. State, 61 Ind. 379; State, ex rel. v. Board, etc., 124 Ind. 554, 25 N.E. 10; Copeland v. State, etc., 126 Ind. 51, 25 N.E. 866; State, ex rel. v. Engle, 127 Ind. 457, 26 N.E. 1077.
We are not called upon to decide what would be the rule in a case where there was a reasonable question as to the sufficiency of the bond, for in this case the appellant occupies the position of refusing to approve an appeal, about the...
To continue reading
Request your trial