Langenberg v. Decker
Decision Date | 10 May 1892 |
Docket Number | 16,373 |
Citation | 31 N.E. 190,131 Ind. 471 |
Parties | Langenberg v. Decker |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Marion Superior Court.
Judgment affirmed.
A. G Smith, Attorney General, for appellant.
A. C Harris, T. A. Stuart, W. V. Stuart, C. B. Stuart, W. A Ketcham, S. O. Pickens, S. N. Chambers, C. W. Moores, A. Zollars, N. O. Ross, J. T. Dye, J. M. Butler, A. H. Snow and J. M. Butler, Jr., for appellee.
The General Assembly of the State passed an act, which was approved and went into force on the 6th day of March, 1891, entitled "An act concerning taxation, repealing all laws in conflict herewith, and declaring an emergency."
The act creates a State Board of Tax Commissioners, composed of five persons, viz., the Secretary of State, the Auditor of State, and the Governor of the State, who are styled ex officio members, and two persons of opposite political faith appointed by the Governor of the State. At the time the matters occurred, out of which this suit arose, the board was composed of the Secretary of State, the Auditor of State, the Governor of the State, Josiah N. Gwin and Ivan N. Walker.
By the provisions of the act the Governor of the State is the chairman of the State Board of Tax Commissioners.
Section 129 of the act provides that this board shall annually convene in the office of the Auditor of State on the first Monday of August each year for the purpose of assessing railroad property and equalizing the assessment of real estate; that it shall not be bound by any reports or estimates of value of railroad property, real estate or other property, as returned to the county auditors or to the Auditor of State, but shall appraise and assess all property at its true cash value, as defined by the act, according to its best knowledge and judgment, and so equalize the assessment of property throughout the State. It also contains this provision:
Claiming to act under the power and authority conferred upon it by the provisions of this statute, the State Board of Tax Commissioners, on its own motion, caused a subpoena duces tecum to be issued to all the banks in the State, requiring the president, cashier and book-keeper, or either of them, of the bank named in the subpoena, to appear before the board, at the office of the State Board of Tax Commissioners, in the State-House in the city of Indianapolis, on a day named in the subpoena, and to bring and have with them, then and there, such books, papers and accounts of such banking institution as should fully disclose and show the names of all persons having money, bonds, stocks, notes or other property of value on deposit and in the custody of such bank on the 1st day of April, 1891, and the respective amounts of such deposits or other property in the custody of the bank, and to answer all questions which might be asked in relation thereto, or with reference to the property owned by the bank itself. The subpoena was signed by Joseph T. Fanning, as secretary of the board.
At the bottom of the subpoena, and following the signature of the secretary, was the following:
"For the purposes of the State Board of Tax Commissioners, as set forth in this subpoena, it will answer if the president, cashier or book-keeper of the above mentioned bank make out a sworn statement of the balances to the credit of its individual depositors on April 1st, 1891, giving name in full of each depositor, amount of his credit balance, and forward said sworn statement to the State Board of Tax Commissioners without delay."
One of the subpoenas was served upon the appellee, at the city of Evansville, where he resides, and where he is vice-president of a State bank known as the German Bank of Evansville. In answer to the subpoena he appeared before the State Board of Tax Commissioners on the 25th day of August, 1891, when there was present of the members of the board the following persons, and no others, viz.: Claude Matthews, Secretary of State, acting as president of the board; J. O. Henderson, Auditor of State, and Ivan N. Walker.
Upon his appearance he was duly sworn, when the following proceedings were had, viz.:
By the board: "No; we are exercising the power of discovery."
The witness: "I decline to answer, under the advice of counsel, either as to the name of any depositor or the amount of his deposit."
A. "I respectfully ask the board to state, before an answer to the question just put, whether there is any appeal, complaint, cause or proceeding of any kind pending before this board or elsewhere to assess the property of said bank or any partner therein."
Answer by the board: "No."
The witness: "I decline to do so, under advice of counsel."
Thereupon the State Board of Tax Commissioners, because of the refusal of the appellee to appear and answer the questions above set forth, and to give the information thereby sought to be elicited, assessed against him a fine of five hundred dollars, and that he stand committed until the fine be paid or replevied, and entered the following judgment: "Therefore, it is considered and ordered by the State Board of Tax Commissioners that Philip C. Decker, on account of his refusal to appear and answer questions, and his disobedience to the order of this board, be and hereby is fined in the sum of five hundred dollars ($ 500), and it is further considered by the board that said Philip C. Decker do stand committed to the jail of Marion county, Indiana, until said fine be paid or replevied."
Upon entering the foregoing judgment the secretary of the board delivered to the appellant, as the sheriff of Marion county a commitment reciting the fact that the appellee had...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States Milwaukee Social Democratic Pub Co v. Burleson
...88 Cal. 491, 26 Pac. 375, 22 Am. St. Rep. 321; Cleveland, etc., Ry. Co. v. People, 212 Ill. 638, 72 N. E. 725; Langenberg v. Decker, 131 Ind. 471, 31 N. E. 190, 16 L. R. A. 108; In re Sims, 54 Kan. 1, 37 Pac. 135, 25 L. R. A. 110, 45 Am. St. Rep. 18 Compare Morris v. State, 1 Blackf. (Ind.)......
-
Bissell Carpet Sweeper Co. v. Shane Co.
...can the Legislature delegate its law making power to a governmental officer, board, bureau or commission. Langenberg v. Decker, 1892, 131 Ind. 471, 479, 31 N.E. 190, 16 L.R.A. 108; Blue v. Beach, 1900, 155 Ind. 121, 133, 56 N.E. 89, 50 L.R.A. 64; Sarlls v. State ex rel. Trimble, 1929, 201 I......
-
Wright v. Plaza Ford
...7 Cases in other states divide on the issue. Accord: People v. Swena, 88 Colo. 337, 296 P. 271 (Sup.Ct.1931); Langenberg v. Decker, 131 Ind. 471, 31 N.E. 190 (Sup.Ct.1892); In re Sims, 54 Kan. 1, 37 P. 135 (Sup.Ct. 1894); Roberts v. Hackney, 109 Ky. 265, 58 S.W. 810 (Ct.App.1900); Cf. Haas ......
-
Perry v. Perry
...Dogge v. State, 21 Neb. 272, 278-80, 31 N.W. 929 (1887) (imprisonment by notary public); but see contra, e.g., Langenberg v. Decker, 131 Ind. 471, 31 N.E. 190 (1892) (imprisonment imposed by state board of tax commissioners); Wright v. Plaza Ford, 164 N.J.Super. 203, 395 A.2d 1259 (1978) (f......