Morgan Civil Township v. Hunt
| Decision Date | 20 January 1886 |
| Docket Number | 12,542 |
| Parties | Morgan Civil Township v. Hunt |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Porter Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
A. D Bartholomew and E. D. Crumpacker, for appellant.
W. E Pinney, for appellee.
On the 10th day of April, 1884, Franklin W. Hunt filed his petition in the circuit court of Porter county praying for the establishment of a ditch. It was averred in the petition that, among other benefits, the ditch when constructed would be of great public utility in draining three public highways in Morgan township.
The petition was, after due notice, referred to the commissioners of drainage. From the report of the commissioners, to whom the matter was referred, it appeared that two highways, which are not particularly described, would each be benefited to the amount of eighty dollars.
Within ten days after the filing of this report, what purports to be a remonstrance was filed on behalf of the township. It is not stated in the remonstrance that the township is the owner of any lands, or that any easements in lands will be affected by the construction of the proposed ditch, or that it is otherwise interested in its construction.
The remonstrance was signed by attorneys for the township, and was not verified. After the expiration of ten days the petitioner moved to strike out the remonstrance, on the ground that it was not verified as the statute required. Without showing any excuse for the failure to verify it within the ten days, the township trustee interposed a motion for leave to file an amended remonstrance. The amendment proposed was the verification of the paper originally filed as a remonstrance. This was refused, and the motion to dismiss was sustained. This ruling is complained of as erroneous. We think the ruling of the court was right. By the statute ten days are allowed after the filing of their report by the commissioners of drainage to the owners of lands affected by the proposed work within which to file a remonstrance. The statute prescribes that the remonstrance shall be filed within ten days, and that it shall be verified by affidavit. Assuming, but not deciding, that a civil township may remonstrate without averring that it is the owner of lands affected by the work proposed, or that it is otherwise interested in or affected by the proposed work, we are nevertheless of opinion that a remonstrance in substantial compliance with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Civil Tp. of Morgan v. Hunt
... ... Hunt filed his petition in the circuit court of Porter county, praying for the establishment of a ditch. It was averred in the petition that, among other benefits, the ditch, when constructed, would be of great public utility in draining three public highways in Morgan township. The petition was, after due notice, referred to the commissioners of drainage. From the report of the commissioners, to whom the matter was referred, it appeared that two highways, which are not particularly described, would each be benefited to the amount of $80. Within 10 days after the filing ... ...