Hall v. McDonald

Decision Date07 October 1908
Docket NumberNo. 21,128.,21,128.
Citation171 Ind. 9,85 N.E. 707
PartiesHALL et al. v. McDONALD et al.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Porter County; W. C. McMahan, Judge.

Proceedings by Henry R. McDonald and others for the improvement of certain highways in which Billings Hall and others filed remonstrances. From a judgment for petitioners in the circuit court, on appeal from the board of commissioners, remonstrators appeal. Affirmed.

Wm. H. Dowdell, for appellants. Johnston & Bartholomew, for appellees.

MONKS, J.

This proceeding was commenced by appellees before the board of commissioners of Porter county for the improvement of certain highways in Pine township, in said county, by taxation, under section 7712 et seq., Burns' Ann. St. 1908, being Acts 1907, p. 137, c. 96, § 1, amending section 63 of the act of 1905 (Acts 1905, p. 551, c. 167), and sections 64-83, c. 167, pp. 551-561, Acts 1905. Appellants, remonstrators, appealed from the judgment of the board of commissioners in favor of appellees to the court below, where the cause was tried upon the issues made before the board, and the court rendered judgment thereon and for costs in favor of appellees against appellants, and ordered that the case be “certified back to the board of commissioners, with instructions to proceed therewith as required by law.” From this judgment the appellants appealed to this court.

Appellees move to dismiss the appeal because:(1) Said judgment of the court below is not final, but interlocutory, from which no appeal lies; (2) the assignment of errors does not contain the full names of all the appellees.” While section 123 of the highway act (Acts 1905, p. 579, c. 167), being section 7793, Burns' Ann. St. 1908, which governed the appeal to the court below, provides for a hearing de novo in that court, it also authorizes such court “to make final determination of the cause so appealed, or it may refer the case back to the county board, or boards, with directions how to proceed.” The court below made the order referring the case back to the county board under this section. Sharp v. Malia, 124 Ind. 407, 25 N. E. 9;Sunier v. Miller, 105 Ind. 393, 397, 4 N. E. 867;Bonfoy v. Goar, 140 Ind. 292, 294, 295, 39 N. E. 56. No motion was made to modify or change said judgment or order of the court in any way. Said judgment made a final disposition of all the questions involved in the appeal, and put an end to the proceedings in the court below. Sharp v. Malia, supra; Sunier v. Miller, supra; Bonfoy v. Goar, supra. Said judgment was therefore a final judgment, from which an appeal may be taken to this court. Section 644, Burns' Ann. St. 1901; sections 671, 1393, Burns' Ann. St. 1908; Acts 1907, p. 137, c. 96; Elliott's App. Proc. §§ 80, 81, 82, 84, 85; Thomas v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 139 Ind. 462, 463, 39 N. E. 44, and cases cited.

Appellees insist, in support of the second ground of the motion to dismiss this appeal, “that the assignment of errors contains the names of 12 appellees who are described by their surnames and the initials of their Christian names only, which is in violation of the rule of this court, which requires that the assignment of errors shall contain the full names of all the parties. Eubank's Manual, §§ 13, 120.” Appellees whose full names it is claimed are not contained in the assignment of errors are described therein by the names signed to the petition, being the names by which they appeared and became parties to this proceeding before the board of commissioners and in the court below. Appellees, after so signing said petition and appearing in said courts by said names, have no right to urge here as a ground of dismissal that they have any other or different names than as signed to the petition and by which they were known as parties in the court below. Goodrich v. Stangland, 155 Ind. 279, 281, 58 N. E. 148. If said appellees were appellants, a different question would be presented. Good v. Burk, 167 Ind. 462, 77 N. E. 1080. Appellees' motion to dismiss this appeal is therefore overruled.

Appellants urge that “the petition is insufficient, because it does not allege that the petition is signed by 50 or more freeholders and voters of Pine township, and whether the township includes an incorporated town or city having a population of less than 30,000 inhabitants; nor does it allege that the petitioners constitute a majority of the freehold voters in the township and that there are less than 100 freehold voters therein, as required, if governed by the proviso contained in section 7712, Burns' Ann. St. 1908 (Acts 1907, p. 137, c. 96), under which this proceeding was brought.” There is nothing in the statute (section 7712, Burns' Ann. St. 1908 et seq., being section 1, c. 96, p. 137, Acts 1907), amending section 63 of the act of 1905 (Acts 1905, p. 551, c. 167), and sections 64-83, c. 167, pp. 551-561, Acts 1905, under which this proceeding was brought, which requires that any such allegations be contained in the petition. The only provision in regard to what shall be stated in the petition is contained in section 7713, Burns' Ann. St. 1908 (section 6790, Burns' Ann. St. Supp. 1905), being section 64, c. 167, p. 551, Acts 1905, and that has reference alone to a description of the highways to be improved. In proceedings to establish or vacate highways in this state, the statutes have uniformly required that the petition should be signed by “twelve freeholders of the county, six of whom shall reside in the immediate neighborhood of the highway proposed to be located,” and it has been held that it was not necessary to the sufficiency of the petition that said facts be alleged therein. Brown v. McCord, 20 Ind. 270;Kellogg v. Price, 42 Ind. 360, 362, 363;Washington Ice Co. v. Lay, 103 Ind. 48, 51, 52, 2 N. E. 222, and cases cited; Huff v. City of La Fayette, 108 Ind. 14, 19, 8 N. E. 701, and cases cited; Humboldt Co. v. Dinsmore, 75 Cal. 604-606, 17 Pac. 710.

In Brown v. McCord, supra, a proceeding for the location of a public highway, objection was made in the circuit court to the petition, because it did not allege that the petitioners, or at least 12 of them, were freeholders of the county, and that 6 of such freeholders resided in the immediate neighborhood of the highway proposed to be located. The circuit court overruled said objection, and on appeal this court said: “The statute says: ‘Whenever twelve freeholders of the county, six of whom reside in the immediate neighborhood of the highway proposed to be located, etc., shall petition the board of commissioners for the location of, etc., of any highway such board, if they are satisfied that notice of such application has been given, etc., shall appoint viewers to view such highway.’ 1 Rev. St. 1852, p. 310, § 15 (Acts 1859, p. 113, c. 64, § 1). As we have seen, the statute does not definitely point out what the petition must contain. It should, however, be subscribed to by at least 12 freeholders, should describe the proposed highway, and should name the owners, etc., of the lands through which it may pass. 1 Rev. St. 1852, p. 306, § 1. But an allegation that the petitioners were freeholders, or that 6 of them resided in the immediate neighborhood of the contemplated highway, is not in our opinion essential to the validity of the petition. These facts may be proved on the hearing of the petition, though they are not alleged in the pleading.” In Washington Ice Co. v. Lay, supra, this court said (pages 51, 52, of 103 Ind., page 224 of 2 N. E.): “The general highway law provides that the petition shall be signed by freeholders, but it does not require that this shall appear upon the face of the petition. The petition need not in any case ‘purport to be signed by freeholders.’ Brown v. McCord, 20 Ind. 270. Whether the petition is so signed is a question for the decision of the county board before taking further action upon it. Objection to the qualifications of the petitioners should be made at the first opportunity before the county board. If not made then and there, they will be deemed as waived. Little v. Thompson, 24 Ind. 146;Fisher v. Hobbs, 42 Ind. 276;Wilson v. Whitsell, 24 Ind. 306;Sowle v. Cosner, 56 Ind. 276;Turley v. Oldham, 68 Ind. 114.”

Section 9 of the Nicholson law provided that it should be unlawful for the board of commissioners to grant license to sell intoxicating liquors when a remonstrance in writing signed by a majority of the legal voters of the township or city ward was filed three days before any regular session of the board. Acts 1895, p. 251, c. 127. It was claimed in Head v. Doehleman, 148 Ind. 145, 46 N. E. 585, that such remonstrance, to be sufficient, must allege that the persons who signed the same were legal voters of the township or city ward and that they constituted a majority of the legal voters thereof. This court (page 147 of 148 Ind., page 586 of 46 N. E.) said: “This section (9) does not prescribe what the form or language of the remonstrance shall be, nor what its allegations shall be. It does require that the remonstrance shall be against the granting of the license, and that it shall be signed by a majority of the legal voters of the township or ward; but it does not require the body of the remonstrance to state that fact, or that they are legal voters of the township or ward. A petition for the establishment of a highway must, in order to confer jurisdiction on the board of commissioners under the statute, be signed at least by 12 freeholders of the county. But that fact-that is, that they are freeholders and residents of the county-need not be stated in the petition. Little v. Thompson, 24 Ind. 146.” The court held in said case that, while it was not necessary to allege in the remonstrance that the persons signing the same were legal voters of the township or ward and that they constituted a majority of the legal voters thereof, proof thereof must be made. Cochell v. Reynolds, 156 Ind. 14, 16, 58 N. E....

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Hall v. McDonald
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • October 7, 1908
  • State ex rel. Drudge v. Davisson
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • November 29, 1910
    ...sanction in any of them for entertaining those presented by appellant. Such has been the unvarying ruling of this court. Hall v. McDonald, 171 Ind. 9-18, 85 N. E. 707;Migatz v. Stieglitz, 166 Ind. 361, 364, 77 N. E. 400;Lynch v. Harvester Co., 159 Ind. 675, 65 N. E. 1025;Gates v. Railroad C......
  • State ex rel. Drudge v. Davisson
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • November 29, 1910
    ... ... Ind. 707] of them for entertaining those presented by ... appellant. Such has been the unvarying ruling of this court ... Hall v. McDonald (1908), 171 Ind. 9, 85 ... N.E. 707; Migatz v. Stieglitz (1906), 166 ... Ind. 361, 77 N.E. 400; Lynch v. Milwaukee ... Harvester Co ... ...
  • New v. Germania Fire Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • October 9, 1908
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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