Hall v. City of Lebanon
| Decision Date | 02 June 1903 |
| Docket Number | 4,788 |
| Citation | 67 N.E. 703,31 Ind.App. 265 |
| Parties | HALL v. CITY OF LEBANON ET AL |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From Clinton Circuit Court; J. V. Kent, Judge.
Suit by Minerva J. Hall against the city of Lebanon and others. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
P. H Dutch, for appellant.
J. T Dye, S. M. Ralston, S. R. Artman, H. C. Sheridan and C. M Bounell, for appellees.
Transferred from the Supreme Court under the act of March 12, 1901.
Appellant seeks to enjoin the vacation of a portion of a public street. The error assigned rests upon the ruling of the court sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.
The complaint avers that appellant is a resident taxpayer in appellee city, and owns certain real estate which abuts and is situated adjacent to Jamestown avenue, and immediately upon the line of the avenue; that-certain persons, named petitioned for the vacation of a part of the avenue, the petition alleging that it was not of public utility, and that all the abutting property owners had signed the petition except the appellee railway company, which filed a waiver of notice; that this petition was by the council referred to the street committee which recommended that the matter be referred to the city commissioners which was done. It is further averred that no notice was given of the meeting of the commissioners, and that appellant did not know of the meeting until after the commissioners had viewed the street; that at her first opportunity, and while a majority of the commissioners were yet together, she presented to one of them her remonstrance, objecting to the competency of some of the commissioners, and that the proposed vacation would be a detriment to her, would greatly inconvenience the public traveling over the avenue, and would not be of public benefit and utility; that before the report of the commissioners was acted on she presented to the council an additional remonstrance, objecting to the competency of certain commissioners, that the report failed to state the names of all the property owners and to describe the property that would be affected, that the petitioners gave no notice, and that no notice was given of the meeting of the commissioners; that the council illegally and wrongfully refused and neglected to appoint competent commissioners. It is further averred that the report of the commissioners in favor of the vacation of the street was adopted, in disregard of appellant's remonstrance, and under the pretense that appellant had no right to object to the competency of the commissioners; that the action of the council in adopting the report was illegal because of the incompetency of the commissioners, which alleged incompetency is set out in the complaint; that appellee railway company is threatening to and is about to take possession of that part of the street vacated, and that the other appellees will appropriate to their own use such portion of the street unless restrained from doing so; that appellant "will be greatly damaged" if the council is permitted to carry into execution the report of the commissioners; that she will suffer certain inconvenience in reaching the main part of the city; that the council illegally and wrongfully adopted the report of the commissioners, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial