Jackson v. State

Decision Date16 October 1885
Docket Number11,786
PartiesJackson v. The State, for use of Lindley, Drainage Commissioner
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

From the Howard Circuit Court.

Judgment reversed.

J. W Kern, B. F. Harness, J. C. Blackledge and W. E. Blackledge for appellant.

M Garrigus, for appellee.


Elliott, J.

The complaint, the sufficiency of which is challenged by demurrer, seeks to enforce the collection of an assessment for the construction of a ditch.

It is not averred in the body of the complaint, that the appellant had notice of the proceedings, or that any notice whatever was given, and for this reason the appellant's counsel insist that the court erred in overruling the demurrer.

The appellee attempts to parry the attack by the argument that the proceedings are set forth as an exhibit and it there appears that notice was given. We do not think the appellee's position can be maintained. It has been very many times decided that instruments which are not the foundation of the pleading should not be made exhibits, and that, if they are, they can not be deemed part of the pleading. The practice of crowding the record with evidence in the form of exhibits has often been condemned as a censurable one. The proceedings of the officers and viewers in laying out and constructing a ditch may be evidence, but it is not proper to plead evidence. It is not the duty of the court to examine evidence set forth in a pleading to ascertain whether facts may be inferred; on the contrary, it is the duty of the pleader to state traversable facts positively and directly. It has been held that the assessment is the foundation of the action to enforce collection of benefits, and that it must be made an exhibit. State, ex rel., v. Myers, 100 Ind. 487; State v. Turvey, 99 Ind. 599; Neiman v. State, 58 Ind. 88; Roberts v. State, 97 Ind. 399; Crist v. State, ex rel., 97 Ind. 389; Albertson v. State, ex rel., 95 Ind. 370; Smith v. Clifford, 83 Ind. 520. But we do not think that a plaintiff in such a case as this can make a good complaint by making exhibits of instruments not constituting the foundation of his complaint. If this were so, there need be no averments at all in the body of the complaint as to what proceedings were had, and the court would be compelled to look through a long and complicated record, affecting many interests and many persons, to ascertain what the facts were. Good pleading requires...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Jackson v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 16 Octubre 1885
  • Kennedy v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 12 Enero 1887
    ...filed with and made part of, such complaint.” Upon the same subject, see, also, the following cases: Moss v. State, 101 Ind. 321;Jackson v. State, 103 Ind. 250; S. C. 2 N. E. Rep. 742; McMullen v. State, 105 Ind. 334; S. C. 4 N. E. Rep. 903. The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the cau......

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