Meara v. Brindley
| Decision Date | 25 February 1935 |
| Docket Number | 26201 |
| Citation | 194 N.E. 351,207 Ind. 657 |
| Parties | MEARA et al. v. BRINDLEY et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Appeal from Lake Circuit Court; E. Miles Norton, Judge.
Joseph H. Conroy, of Hammond, for appellants.
George Panea, of Hammond, for appellees
Appellees, members of the township advisory board of North township, brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment interpreting certain provisions of chapter 74 of the Acts of 1931. There was judgment holding the act constitutional, and construing section 2 of the act as conferring power upon the advisory board, and not upon the trustee, to select the persons that shall be employed by the trustee as investigators or assistants in discharging the duties of trustee concerning the relief of the poor.
The errors assigned question the correctness of the court's construction and interpretation of the statute.
The act is entitled: 'An Act concerning township business in certain townships, prescribing duties of the trustee and township advisory board, providing penalties and declaring an emergency.' It is contended that the act violates section 19 of article 4 of the Constitution of Indiana, which reads
It is contended that the township trustee is overseer of the poor that poor relief is county business; that the title of the act indicates that it relates to township business; and that thus the act is void, since it does not deal with county business. It is well settled that poor relief, other than institutional support, is township business; that the township trustee, in acting as overseer of the poor, is acting for the township. It is true that it is made unlawful for the board of county commissioners, or any other public authority, to advance funds otherwise than in compliance with the act, but the funds referred to are advanced upon the credit of the township, and the advancement of such funds properly comes under the heading of township business. For a full discussion of the relationship of the township and county to poor relief see Wayne Township v. Brown (1933) 205 Ind. 437, 186 N.E. 841; Lund v. State (1934) 207 Ind. -- , 190 N.E. 850.
It is also contended that the act violates section 22 of article 4 of the Constitution of Indiana, which reads: 'The General Assembly shall not pass local or special laws, in any of the following enumerated cases, that is to say: * * * Regulating county and township business.'
The act applies to townships having one or more second class cities which are not county...
To continue reading
Request your trial