Meek v. State ex rel. Linville

Decision Date07 October 1909
Docket NumberNo. 21,253.,21,253.
Citation89 N.E. 307,172 Ind. 654
PartiesMEEK, Town Clerk of Jonesboro, v. STATE ex rel. LINVILLE et al.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

On petition for rehearing. Former opinion (88 N. E. 299) modified, and petition overruled.

MONTGOMERY, C. J.

In support of appellant's petition for a rehearing, counsel insist that section 4230, Burns' Ann. St. 1901 (Acts 1877, p. 22, c. 14), is not within the purview of the act of March 6, 1905 (Acts 1905, p. 219, c. 129), “concerning municipal corporations,” and hence was not thereby repealed. The act of 1877 relates only to the disannexation of unplatted suburban lots or tracts of ground, and for that reason forms no basis or justification for the board's denial of the petition to disannex the platted addition mentioned in this proceeding. This fact meets and disposes of appellant's claim that under section 4230, supra, the town board had discretionary power to grant or deny the petition for disannexation and from its action no appeal to court was authorized.

This holding renders it unnecessary for us to decide in this case whether or not the act of 1877 was repealed by the act of 1905. The declaration in the original opinion to the effect that the former act was repealed by section 272 of the latter act is withdrawn, and the opinion to be regarded as modified to that extent. See State ex rel. v. Ives et al., 167 Ind. 13, 18, 78 N. E. 225. The constitutionality of section 10 of the act of March 12, 1907 (Acts 1907, p. 621, c. 279), granting a right of appeal to the circuit court from the action of boards in these matters, was not questioned in the original briefs, and that question cannot now be raised or considered. Indiana, etc., Co. v. St. Joseph, etc., Co., 159 Ind. 42, 63 N. E. 304, 64 N. E. 468;Armstrong v. Hufty, 156 Ind. 606, 630, 55 N. E. 443, 60 N. E. 1080, and cases there cited.

The petition for rehearing is overruled.

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Cunningham v. Hiles
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • March 25, 1980
    ...rehearing den. 178 Ind. 232, 98 N.E. 1002; Meeks v. State, ex rel. (1909), 172 Ind. 654, 663, 88 N.E. 299, pet. for rehearing den. 172 Ind. 654, 89 N.E. 307. (See rehearing In Ness v. Board of Commissioners, supra, the rule was applied in circumstances not unlike those present here. Plainti......
  • In Re Switzer's Estate, in Re
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 13, 1934
    ...631, 79 N.W. 941; Manning v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. R. 326, 81 S.W. 957, 3 Ann. Cas. 867; Meek v. State ex rel., 172 Ind. 654, 88 N.E. 299, 89 N.E. 307; Bade v. Hibberd, 50 501, 93 P. 364; Spackman v. Gross, 25 S.D. 244, 126 N.W. 389; Hogue v. Hogue, 137 Ark. 485, 208 S.W. 579; Hogue v. Dudley,......
  • Grabowski v. Benzsa
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • June 21, 1923
    ...335, 83 N. E. 766;Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Morrey (1909) 172 Ind. 513, 88 N. E. 932;Meek v. State (1909) 172 Ind. 654, 88 N. E. 299, 89 N. E. 307;Gfroerer v. Gfroerer (1909) 173 Ind. 424, 90 N. E. 757. From the language quoted above it may be reasonably implied, that appellant delivered t......
  • Livengood v. City of Covington
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • June 11, 1924
    ... ... follows, to wit:--'State of Indiana, Fountain County SS: ... To The Common Council Of The City of ... Board, etc ... (1903), 31 Ind.App. 331, 67 N.E. 1007; Meek v ... State, ex rel. (1909), 172 Ind. 654, 88 ... N.E. 299; Marker v ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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