Hamilton County Council v. State ex rel. Groff, 28558.

Citation227 Ind. 608, 87 N.E.2d 810
Case DateSeptember 28, 1949
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

227 Ind. 608
87 N.E.2d 810

HAMILTON COUNTY COUNCIL et al.
v.
STATE ex rel.
GROFF.

No. 28558.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Sept. 28, 1949.


The State of Indiana, on the relation of Forrest R. Groff, County Superintendent of Schools of Hamilton County, Indiana, filed a proceeding to mandate the Hamilton County Council and others, to make appropriations and to pay relator additional salary in accordance with an order of the township trustees.

The Circuit Court, Hamilton County, Tom R. White, J., rendered judgment for the relator, and the defendants appealed to the Appellate Court, and the appeal was transferred from the Appellate Court under § 4-214, Burns' 1946 Replacement.

The Supreme Court, Gilkison, C. J., affirmed the judgment, construed the statute relating to salary of the superintendent and held that it was the mandatory duty of defendants to make appropriations and pay the relator additional salary.

[87 N.E.2d 810]

Campbell & Campbell, Noblesville, for appellants.

Bell & Bell, Indianapolis, for appellee.

[87 N.E.2d 811]


GILKISON, Chief Justice.

Appellee, relator, filed his complaint in the trial court to mandate appellants as The Hamilton County Council to make appropriations and the Board of Commissioners of Hamilton County to pay him $450 additional salary, from August 16, 1947 to December 31, 1947; $1,200 additional salary for 1948; and $4,800 salary for 1949. The claim is based upon an order of the nine township trustees of Hamilton County at a meeting held on May 5, 1947, increasing the salary of relator as County Superintendent of Hamilton County from $3,600 to $4,800 per year, beginning with August 16, 1947. On May 5, 1947 a copy of the order was filed with the county auditor to be presented to the county council. The county council failed to make the appropriation. Appellants' demurrer to the complaint was overruled and it then answered under the rules by admitting some of the allegations of the complaint and denying others. It then affirmatively alleged that the authority conferred upon township trustees by Acts 1933, Ch. 21, § 14, p. 88, § 49-1014, Burns', as amended by Acts 1939, Ch. 96, § 1, p. 506, § 49-1014, Burns' Supp., is limited and controlled by Acts 1937, Ch. 119, § 3, p. 646, § 64-309, Burns' 1943 Repl.

Upon the issues so joined the cause was tried by the court resulting in a finding and judgment for appellee and mandate against appellants as prayed in the complaint.

Errors assigned are (1) that the court erred in overrulng the demurrer to the complaint and (2) in overruling the motion for new trial.

By each assignment appellants question whether Chapter 96, p. 506, Acts 1939, § 49-1014, Burns' 1933 Supp., is the controlling law in this case or whether this statute must be construed in connection with other existing statutes and legal principles including the county reform acts, Acts 1899, Ch. 154 p. 343 to 365, and all acts amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto, and be controlled thereby.

Chapter 96, p. 506 of the Acts of 1939 is an amendment of Section 14 of Chapter 21, p. 114 of the Acts of 1933 and, of course, must be construed in connection with that law. Prior to this amendment Section 14 read thus: ‘The salaries of the county superintendent as herein stipulated may be increased upon written request of a majority of the township trustees to the county council, who may increase such salary to an amount which in the judgment of the county council may seem proper.’

By Chapter 96, p. 506 of the Acts of 1939 it was amended to read thus: ‘The salary of the county superintendent, as herein stipulated, may be increased by a majority of the township trustees to an amount which, in the judgment of a majority of the township trustees, may seem proper, and the county council shall appropriate and the board of county commissioners shall allow the necessary funds to pay such increase in the salary of the county superintendent.’

It is thus apparent that by the amendment of 1939 the legislature intended to take from the county council the duty of exercising any discretion in the matter of raising the salary of a county superintendent and to bestow that duty solely upon the township trustees of the county. It then went further and made it a mandatory duty of the council to make the appropriation to pay the salary as increased by the trustees, and a like mandatory duty of the board of county commissioners to allow the funds to pay such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Haverstock v. State Public Employees Retirement Fund, 2-585A160
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 20, 1986
    ...the power to enact statutes necessarily entails the power to repeal or modify them. Hamilton County Council v. State ex rel. Groff (1949), 227 Ind. 608, 613, 87 N.E.2d 810, 812; Wencke v. City of Indianapolis (1981), Ind.App., 429 N.E.2d 295, 297, trans. denied. This power is not absolute h......
  • Hamilton County Council v. State ex rel. Groff, 28558.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • September 28, 1949
    ...87 N.E.2d 810 227 Ind. 608 HAMILTON COUNTY COUNCIL et al. v. STATE ex rel. GROFF. No. 28558.Supreme Court of IndianaSeptember 28, [227 Ind. 610] Campbell & Campbell, Noblesville, for appellants. Bell & Bell, Indianapolis, for appellee. [87 N.E.2d 811] GILKISON, Chief Justice. Appellee, rela......
  • Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Baker, 172A48
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 21, 1972
    ...in different language, the latest expression of the legislature is controlling. Hamilton County Council v. State ex rel. Groff (1949), 227 Ind. 608, 87 N.E.2d It is now our responsibility to determine whether the said two statutes are or are not in pari materia. The Fire Special Service Sta......

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