Jarvis v. Robertson

• Decision Date: 10 December 1890
• Docket Number: 14,568
• Citation: 26 N.E. 182,126 Ind. 281
• Parties: Jarvis et al. v. Robertson, Trustee
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

26 N.E. 182

126 Ind. 281

Jarvis et al. v. Robertson, Trustee

No. 14,568

Supreme Court of Indiana

December 10, 1890

From the Parke Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed.

W. H. Thompson and J. West, for appellants.

V. Carter, S.D. Puett and L. H. Hadley, for appellee.

OPINION

Elliott, J.

Although one officer represents both the civil township and the school township, yet these townships are distinct artificial beings. That they are distinct and different corporations has often been adjudged. Carmichael v. Lawrence, 47 Ind. 554; McLaughlin v. Shelby Tp., 52 Ind. 114; City of Huntington v. Day, 55 Ind. 7; Utica Tp. v. Miller, 62 Ind. 230; Harrison Tp. v. McGregor, 67 Ind. 380; Gardner v. Haney, 86 Ind. 17; Middleton v. Greeson, 106 Ind. 18, 5 N.E. 755, vide p. 24; Braden v. Leibenguth, post, p. 336.

Where an action is brought against a township, or a township trustee, and nothing more is done than to give the township name, it is conclusively presumed that the action is against the civil township. To make a complaint effective against the school corporation, it must, by appropriate averments, designate the school township, or its representative, as the defendant. Middleton v. Greeson, supra; Hornby v. State, ex rel., 69 Ind. 102.

In this case the complaint is against the township trustee, and he is not designated as the trustee of the school corporation, so that if it be conceded that a cause of action is stated against the school corporation--and this is what the appellants claim--the concession would not rescue the complaint, for the school corporation is not in court, inasmuch as it is not a party to the action.

Judgment affirmed.