Hudson v. Bunch
| Decision Date | 24 October 1888 |
| Docket Number | 12,822 |
| Citation | 18 N.E. 390,116 Ind. 63 |
| Parties | Hudson et al. v. Bunch et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the St. Joseph Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
J. D McLaren, E. C. Martindale, S. J. Hays and W. G. George, for appellants.
L Hubbard and A. Anderson, for appellees.
On the 7th day of February, 1883, appellee Bunch and eleven other persons filed in the office of the clerk of the court below their petition, duly verified, praying for the location and construction of a certain ditch or drain. It was alleged by the petitioners that such ditch or drain would benefit their lands, but could not be constructed "in the best and cheapest manner without affecting other lands" in St. Joseph and Marshall counties. Such petition was so filed under and pursuant to, and in apparent conformity with, the provisions of section 4274, R. S. 1881, in force at the time; and it was averred therein, among other things, that the drainage prayed for would promote the public health, would benefit three public highways therein described, and would be of public utility. Such proceedings were afterwards had on such petition as that, on the 15th day of January, 1885, final judgment was rendered by the court below for the construction of the aforesaid ditch or drain as therein prayed for, and for the confirmation of the assessments of benefits theretofore made to pay the costs of such construction.
On the 12th day of January, 1886, the remonstrants below and appellants here filed in this court a transcript of the record of this cause, with a large number of alleged errors endorsed thereon, and an elaborate and able brief discussing the various questions presented by such errors. Thereafter it was shown to this court by appellees, that, upon their motion, and due notice thereof to appellants, the court below had caused the record of this cause to be amended and corrected in some important particulars; and thereupon, by writ of certiorari, such amended and corrected record was brought here on this appeal.
Many of the alleged errors of which appellants' counsel complained in their brief of this cause, were obviated or shown not to exist by the amended record subsequently filed herein, and such errors, of course, we need not notice further in this opinion. This conclusion practically disposes of the questions presented, or intended to be presented, by the first nine errors assigned by appellants on the record originally filed by them on this appeal, and especially so we think, as their learned counsel have filed no further brief herein since the record bearing on those questions was amended below, and such amended record was brought into this court on the appeal herein.
The tenth error of which appellants complain is assigned as follows: "That the St. Joseph Circuit Court had no jurisdiction in this cause to assess and adjudge and confirm assessments for drainage against appellants' lands, situate in Marshall county, Indiana."
The jurisdictional question intended to be presented here by this assignment of error, has been decided by this court adversely to the appellants herein in a number of cases, wherein it has been held that the court of the county in which the petitioner resides and the proceeding is commenced, has jurisdiction and authority to establish a ditch extending into another county. Shaw v. State, etc., 97 Ind. 23; Crist v. State, ex rel., 97 Ind. 389; Buchanan v. Rader, 97 Ind. 605; State, for use of, etc., v. Turvey, 99 Ind. 599; Meranda v. Spurlin, 100 Ind. 380; Updegraff v. Palmer, 107 Ind. 181, 6 N.E. 353. Upon the authority of the cases cited, it must be held in the cause now before us that the St. Joseph Circuit Court had jurisdiction and authority to assess appellants' lands, situate in Marshall county, with the cost of drainage, and to confirm by its judgment assessments made thereon under its order and direction.
Appellants next complain of the alleged error of the court below in...
To continue reading
Request your trial