Grimes v. Coe

• Decision Date: 24 June 1885
• Citation: 1 N.E. 735,102 Ind. 406
• Parties: Grimes and others v. Coe and others.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

102 Ind. 406

1 N.E. 735

Grimes and others

v.Coe and others.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Filed June 24, 1885.

Appeal from Tippecanoe circuit court.

A. A. Rice and Wm. S. Potter, for appellants.

C. D. Jones, for appellees.

Elliott, J.

The questions presented by the record, as corrected, arise upon the ruling denying a new trial. The appellants appealed from a judgment of the circuit court establishing a ditch, and assail the finding of the court on various grounds. The first point made against the finding is shown by the amended record to be not well founded in fact, and it will not be further noticed. It is argued that the finding was wrong because the report of the commissioners does not show that the ditch can be constructed for a sum less than the benefits assessed. We think this argument is based on an erroneous construction of the report. The report states in express terms that the ditch can be constructed for a less sum than the estimated benefits. We think this means all expenses, direct and incidental. We do not understand that the commissioners are required to set forth evidence, but that all that is required is that they shall state their conclusions of fact.

It is true that the tabulated statement in the report shows benefits to exactly equal the cost of constructing the ditch, but we think that the positive finding of the commissioners, directly stated, is not controlled by this table of estimates. The tabulated statement was made for another purpose, and was not intended to control the positive finding. The report is in substantial conformity to the provisions of the statute, and we cannot hold that the proceedings are to fail simply because of a trifling inconsistency in its statements. Meranda v. Spurlin, 100 Ind. 380;Myers v. Giers, 5 Ind. Law Mag. 38.

It is argued that as no notice was given to one of the parties against whom an assessment was levied, the proceedings are void as to all the persons assessed. We are not inclined to adopt this view, for we are unwilling to hold that persons properly notified can take advantage of the failure to name in the notice other persons against whom benefits are assessed, unless it be shown that the failure to give such notice will prevent the construction of the ditch. The township of Lairaimie, the artificial person that it is said was not notified, is not here complaining; it has not appealed; and without a showing that the failure to notify it, conceding that there was such a...