Julian v. State

Decision Date26 February 1895
Docket Number16,697
Citation39 N.E. 923,140 Ind. 581
PartiesJulian et al. v. The State
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

From the Marion Superior Court.

Judgment affirmed.

Davis & Martz, J. B. Julian and J. F. Julian, for appellant.

W. A Ketcham, Attorney-General, S. H. Spooner and M. Moores, for State.

OPINION

Monks J.

This action was brought by appellants, in the court below, under the act approved March 9, 1889, section 1419, R. S. 1894, which authorizes any person or persons having, or claiming to have, a money demand against the State, arising at law or equity, express or implied, to bring suit against the State in the superior court of Marion county, Indiana, etc.

It is averred in the first paragraph of the complaint that in 1879 the State was the owner of 8,000 acres of land known as the Beaver lake lands, in Newton county, and which had been taken possession of by persons without right, who assumed to own the same; that Attorney-General Woolen appointed appellants his assistants, to bring and prosecute all necessary suits in the State's favor to recover said lands; that the Governor, James D. Williams, also employed appellants as attorneys for the State to take charge of and bring and prosecute all necessary suits to recover said real estate, and to defend the State and her property in all suits that should be brought in the interest of the trespassers on said land, and that the compensation was to be reasonable and fair; that appellant Jacob B. Julian who had been employed by the Governor as aforesaid, was made said Woolen's assistant, and each successor of said Woolen adopted him as his assistant, and approved of the appointment of said John F. Julian as his assistant; that the several Governors of the State, and all the State officers during the pendency of the litigation and the legislative contests so vigorously resisted, down to the close of the business, as they severally came into office, ratified and approved of the appointment and adopted and recognized the same as binding on them severally; that under said employment they brought and prosecuted thirty suits, one of which was appealed to the Supreme Court of the State, where the same was decided in favor of the State; that their services in the above were worth at least $ 3,000, and for money expended and labor performed in trips to Newton county, etc., the sum of $ 500, and for interest $ 500, making in all $ 4,000; that at the session of the Legislature of 1881 the trespassers on said lands, seeing that in the courts they were defeated, caused bills to be presented in each house of the Legislature directing the dismissal of said suits, and quieting the title of said lands in said trespassers; that appellants were thereupon employed and instructed by the Governor and State officers, including Attorney-General Baldwin, to enter into the State's service, and by all fair and legal means resist said threatened inimical legislation and the attempt of said trespassers therein to cheat the State out of said lands; that for resisting these several bills, and others of the same nature, they were to be paid by the State; that appellants spent their days and many nights in personal effort with the committees, including the individual members of the Legislature, during the sessions of 1881, 1883, 1885, 1887 and 1889, and before each session and for many months thereafter; that at the session of 1889 a bill was passed giving away said lands for an insignificant sum; that appellants devoted themselves through said session, including months in advance, as they had done during and prior to other sessions, in resisting said legislation, devoting all their time and leaving nothing undone to enlighten the minds of the members as to the right of the State, her perfect title to the lands and the utter want of title or claim thereto on the part of the trespassers; that both before and during said session they prepared and caused to be printed and circulated circulars and statements, fully showing the State's claim to said lands, and the same were handed to each member; that every day was spent in appeals to members to defeat the outrage; that they appeared before the committee and argued the cause of the State but without avail, and the outrage was consummated, the bill was passed and appellants were, by section seven thereof, awarded about $ 400 for their services and expenses in bringing and prosecuting said actions; that said services, exclusive of the prosecution of said suits were of the fair value of $ 5,000.

The second paragraph seeks to recover for services rendered resisting legislation during the sessions of 1881, 1883, 1885, 1887 and 1889.

The third paragraph is the same as the first, except it is averred that they were employed by the Governor alone.

A demurrer was sustained to each...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • State v. Roberts
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • March 29, 1948
    ... ... State Board of ... Tax Comm. v. McDaniel, 1928, 199 Ind. 708, 160 N.E. 347; ... Hull v. Board, etc., 1924, 195 Ind. 150, 143 N.E ... 589; Ransbottom v. State ex rel., 1912, 178 Ind. 80, ... 96 N.E. 762, 98 N.E. 706; Hord v. State, 1907, 167 ... Ind. 622, 79 N.E. 916; Julian et al. v. State, 1895, ... 140 Ind. 581, [226 Ind. 132] 39 N.E. 923; Julian et al ... v. State, 1890, 122 Ind. 68, 23 N.E. 690; State v ... Portsmouth Savings Bank, 1886, 106 Ind. 435, 7 N.E. 379; ... McCaslin et al. v. State ex rel. Auditor of State, ... 1885, 99 Ind. 428; State ex ... ...

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