Jackson v. State

Decision Date16 October 1885
Citation103 Ind. 250,2 N.E. 742
PartiesJackson v. State, for the Use, etc.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Howard circuit court.

John W. Kern, B. F. Harness, and Blacklidge & Blacklidge, 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 cannot 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 v. Myers, 100 Ind. 487;State v. Turvey, 99 Ind. 599;Neiman v. State, 98 Ind. 58;Roberts v. State, 97 Ind. 399;Crist v. State, Id. 389; Albertson v. State, 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 that the material facts shall be concisely and directly stated in the body of the complaint. It was essential to the plaintiff's case to show...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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