Lipes v. Hand
| Decision Date | 07 January 1886 |
| Docket Number | 11,598 |
| Citation | 4 N.E. 160,104 Ind. 509 |
| Parties | Lipes et al. v. Hand et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Original Opinion of June 27, 1885, Reported at: 104 Ind. 503.
This case has been fully argued both orally and in elaborate briefs, but we are again asked to review the rulings of the trial court and our own.
It is now insisted that we did not decide one of the questions argued. We can not agree with counsel upon this point. We did decide, as many cases in our own and in other courts required us to do, that the drainage law was constitutional, and this necessarily included all phases of the question. We have however, yielded to the earnest appeal of counsel, and now expressly discuss the phase of the question which they seem to think was left undecided.
The position assumed by counsel in their discussion of the case as we understand their argument, is this: The statute of April 8th, 1881, denies a right to a trial by jury, while that of April 21st, 1881, confers that right, and the former statute is, therefore, in conflict with the provision of the Constitution which reads thus: "The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens." No authority is cited in support of this position, and, although we have carefully searched the books, we can find none that lends it the slightest support.
The act of April 8th, 1881, provides for proceedings in the circuit court; while that of April 21st, 1881, provides for proceedings before the board of commissioners. There are, therefore, two distinct courts and two distinct proceedings designated and provided for in the two statutes. Parties in the same court have the same rights, but there is a difference in the procedure of the two courts. The privileges are granted upon the same terms, that is, the rules prescribed for the one court apply to all parties who come into that court. It has always been the legislative practice in this State to prescribe different methods of procedure for different courts. No one has ever supposed that because one method of procedure is provided for the circuit court, and another for the board of commissioners, the Constitution has been violated. We have always had different rules of procedure for the circuit court and for the courts of the justices of the peace, and no one has ever thought of questioning the validity of the statutes prescribing the modes of procedure for those courts. It is perfectly clear that prescribing different methods of procedure for different tribunals is not denying to one class of citizens rights conferred upon another class. Citizens litigating in different courts are not upon the same terms, for they are in different tribunals governed by different systems of procedure.
There is no discrimination between different classes of citizens nor, indeed, is there anything bearing the faintest resemblance to a discrimination. There is a discrimination as to methods of procedure in different tribunals, but none between citizens. Privileges and immunities are not granted to one class and denied to another. The distinction is between judicial tribunals, not between citizens. If we hold the act of April 21st, 1881, unconstitutional, then we must hold that there...
To continue reading
Request your trial