Hasty v. City of Huntington
| Decision Date | 06 March 1886 |
| Docket Number | 12,355 |
| Citation | 5 N.E. 559,105 Ind. 540 |
| Parties | Hasty v. City of Huntington |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Huntington Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
J. B Kenner and J. I. Dille, for appellant.
B. F Ibach, for appellee.
In this case the appellant Hasty, the defendant below, has here assigned as errors the decisions of the circuit court in overruling (1) his demurrer to the complaint, (2) his motion for a new trial, and (3) his motion in arrest of judgment.
The first and third of these alleged errors may properly be considered together, as they each call in question the sufficiency of appellee's complaint, the first before and the second after the trial and finding thereon. The suit was commenced before the mayor of the city of Huntington, and was taken by appeal to the court below. In its complaint the city of Huntington alleged that appellant, on or about the 17th day of April, 1883, at the city and county of Huntington, then and there violated section three of an ordinance of such city, passed by the common council thereof on the 6th day of of March, 1882, by unlawfully erecting a building or a structure in the third ward of such city without first making application to the clerk of the board of public improvements of such city, as required by such section. Wherefore, etc.
In the thirty-second clause of section 3106, R. S. 1881, in force since March 10th, 1873, power is conferred upon the common council of a city incorporated, as the city of Huntington was, under the general law of this State for the incorporation of cities, "To organize a board of public improvements, and empower such board to grant permits to build houses or additions thereto." The validity of the city ordinance, or of the section thereof, for the violation of which the appellant was prosecuted in the case at bar, is in no manner questioned in the brief of his counsel, and, therefore, can hardly be said to be involved in this appeal. For this reason it might well be held, as it seems to us, that this court has no jurisdiction of this appeal. Because, as the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, is only one dollar, and as the cause originated before the mayor of a city, and does not involve the validity of a city ordinance, the appeal is not authorized by the provisions of section 632, R. S. 1881, regulating appeals to this court.
Passing this point, however, as it is not made by appellee's counsel, we may say that the ordinance of the city of Huntington, and the section thereof, for the violation of which appellant is prosecuted in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hasseld v. Seyfort
... ... Their ... contention is, that the so called Clay City property, ... consisting of boots and shoes, did not pass to the assignee, ... although it was ... ...